[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] strange behaviour of {cortu}



On Saturday, February 9, 2013 9:08:46 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote:
On 9 February 2013 13:50, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:21:29 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote:
>>
>> I still don't see the problem. And, while I agree with most of tsani's
>> stance on use
>> of abstractions, I think he went too far here. The locus of pain IS a
>> concrete object,
>> and the fact that it is usually described with a part-whole relation
>> doesn't mean that
>> it has to be always like that. Consider
>>   {mi cortu lo xunre}
>>
>
> Well, he said he was semi-serious. Next, IMO this is not lojban but a
> dialect of it. Lastly, this shows how this problem could be solved.
>

Again, I don't see the problem. Restricting cortu2 to involve a part-of-body
relation would be a problem.

Of course. I didn't suggest that. The problem is that two arbitrary sumti from one jufra may not be equal.
E.g. there can be semi-abstractions like in the case with {mi kakne lo ka citka lo plise} where {kakne2} mustn't contain anything but this semi-abstraction where one inner sumti is automatically replicated from kakne1. This is something that just wasn't built into the design of Lojban. That's why such questions as "I don't see a problem" arise (e.g. long long ago I used to think that all languages must have verbs and nouns, which Lojban proved wrong to me). Saying that unfilled places are {zo'e} and can be easily derived from context makes Lojban not so intuitive for computers because they don't know this context. In fact it just suggests that Lojban is a normal natlangish conlang. Of course there are no problems perceived by humans in ordinary "vulgar" speech.
The problem is that Lojban is too loose in allowing what can be inside abstraction-sumti ({mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} is still gendra although absolutely nalsmudra).

A fix to this problem might sound like this.

The first unfilled place of the first brivla inside {cortu2} is automatically assumed to be filled with {ce'u} which refers to {cortu1}. so that we have {mi cortu lo stedu [be ce'u]} or {mi cortu ti} that has no places to be filled.

For other nesting brivla similar to {cortu} {ce'u} can refer to other non-x1 places of nesting brivla. Those places are to be specially marked in updated definitions of those brivla for maximum clarity for computers.

Obviously this is 100% backward compatible with the current Lojban.

 
The current {mi cortu lo xunre}, {mi cortu ti},
{mi cortu lo se janli} wouldn't be easily expressible, just to mention the
first few that come up to my mind.

> I can't say that I like such solution, it's a bit awkward but shows the
> idea.
>

Non-problem, non-solution.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.