Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention

[Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:07:53 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
> Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> > If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then why there
> > is no gismu for "intention"?
>
> The intended gismu corresponding to intention was "platu", or perhaps 
> some compound thereof.  I'll accept the possible use of zukte proposed 
> by someone else, though I think intention need not be purposive either.
>
> > {zukte} = "to intend"? the definition says nothing about that. It should be clarified, that is changed.
>
> The gismu list is baselined. We haven't allowed changes merely for 
> clarity for nearly 20 years.

Here is the lack of clarity, actually. If there is no equivalent of {.ai} in gismu space we must create it.

If it's {zukte} then we must clarify it's real meaning.

The question is pretty straightforward: How do I say "I intend ..." not using {.ai} and having in mind it's clean meaning with no extra implications?

> But in point of fact, there is some indication in the list associating 
> zukte with intention - see the note on the definition of lifri for example.
>
> > Just {zukte djica}?
>
> Intention is entirely orthogonal to desire, IMNSHO
>
> Another possibility for intention would be nalsnuti, but I'm not sure 
> that would cover the full range of the attitudinal of intention.
>
> Just a metaphorical tanru?
>
> It isn't, but if it were, so what?  When we started the project, there 
> was certainly no stigma attached to metaphorical interpretations. 
> Indeed, some of the gismu are explicitly defined with metaphorical use 
> in mind (e.g. the mention of protrusion for nazbi).  Such use of 
> metaphor has sometimes been deprecated by the community, but we thought 
> it far preferable to a significantly larger gismu list or more extensive 
> borrowing of words from other languages.
>
> > Or a lujvo again derived from {djica}?
>
> We would of course have used a lujvo made from the metaphoric tanru, if 
> the concept had been based on such a metaphor.
>
> > And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not predicates in a
> > *predicate language*?
>
> What bias?  There are over 1300 gismu, and far fewer cmavo.
>
> If you refer to the attitudinals and other members of UI and the lack of 
> explicit ties to gismu, please remember that the attitudinal system was 
> redesigned and greatly expanded *after* the rest of the language was 
> essentially complete, in 1989-1990.  JCB's original set of attitudinals 
> allowed for only a dozen or two possible expressions.  I had expanded 
> this to around three dozen with intensity markers, but people kept 
> finding holes.
>
> My priority thus was in defining an attitudinal system that worked, and 
> that could cover the entire range of emotions expressed in any and all 
> human languages, as well as (insofar as possible) nonverbal expressions 
> of emotion/attitude as well, and then to go beyond that to ones that 
> someone might WANT to express if the language allowed it.
>
> Once it was done, we had little clue how to define some of the concepts 
> and distinctions clearly in any language, much less Lojban (and not 
> within the confines of the fixed length LogFlash definition field which 
> was the then-standard limitation on definitions).  (The difficulty in 
> defining cmavo is why there was no dictionary published in the early 
> 1990s, and why CLL was written as a necessary prerequisite to any 
> dictionary effort - until we clearly defined the selma'o, the word 
> definitions were too difficult a problem.)
>
> By the time the attitudinal revision was complete and accepted, the 
> gismu list was complete, and preliminarily baselined; we required votes 
> at LogFest for any additions, and there was strong resistance to adding 
> to the set of gismu (and indeed some gismu were deleted in such votes; I 
> still remain fond of gumri = mushroom).  But this wasn't seen as a bias 
> against "predicates", but rather as a strong bias in favor of 
> compounding over adding primitive roots in growing the lexicon.  The 
> attitudinal system itself reflected that bias, in that a huge number of 
> attitudes were designed to be expressed by compound cmavo (indicating 
> intensity as well as opposition and the thoroughly original/untested 
> social/mental/emotional/physical/sexual (and later-added spiritual) 
> modifiers.
>
> There wasn't any real after-the-fact attempt to match attitudinals and 
> gismu beyond a vague attempt to be sure that all of the attitudinals 
> could be somehow expressed as compounds or whatever.  And indeed, doing 
> so might have been problematic, because the oppositions expressed in the 
> attitudinal system (using nai) wouldn't necessarily represented by 
> nal+gismu (e.g. a'enai e'inai), and we couldn't have made the 
> attitudinal system as comprehensive using as few cmavo, if we had been 
> so constrained.
>
>
> lojbab
> -- 
> Bob LeChevalier    loj...@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
> President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/J3yl4iSPsXAJ.
 
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.