Re: [lojban] Loglandic N-paradigm. Is it worthy of examination?

You can use free order of arguments like in FA but there is no need to memorise the order of sumti.

So actually it's like using BAI but you can't use such case tag if it's not in gismu definition.

dunda = x1 gives x2 to x3

but instead of ko'a dunda ko'e ko'i you don't memorise the order

but say something like

{to'o ko'a dunda ri'i ko'e fa'a ko'i}

and there is no need in memorisng the order of arguments.

Your intuition tells you that ko'e (x2 of dunda) is like direct object in European languages therefore you use {ri'i}, you give the gift TOWARDS someone so it's {fa'a}.

BUT IN N-PARADIGM YOU CAN'T USE ANY OTHER BAI except those three.

Therefore they are worse than BAI (that can be used with any gismu) but better than FA (where you must remember the order).

So it's an attempt to introduce cases present in many world languages like German or even English (consider "they->"them" resulting in accusative case). This might make language more naturalistic but I wonder whether those cases are universal and intuitive (whether they can eliminate the need in memorising the order of places)..

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:21:54 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
After the two languages split Loglan introduced optional case tags.
It states that each sumti place can be assigned to a separate class, and no two sumti in any brivla can have sumti places that belong to the same class.

It probably aims at being easy to use, that is you should probably have no problems in choosing what case tag (i.e. preposition) to use for refering to any sumti.

http://loglan.org/Paradigms/paradigm_n.html

Some of them like /jui/ for instance just reminds me of lojbanic {mau} (the problem with "than" in gismu definitions that was probably solved in Lojban).
In my opinion /dio/ leads to some language-specific metaphors (beneficiary being kinda destination).

I'm sorry, is this something like the BAI? Otherwise I don't get it.

But on the other hand, don't recent (and actually eternal) suggestions to remove some frequent sumti places suggest something similar?

I know of no suggestions to remove frequent sumti places. Perhaps you meant INfrequent, as in the places that are rarely if ever used, and usually have a BAI equivalent s well?

Yes I meant not removing but rather ignoring them and using BAI instead (like with "by standard...")

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )