Subject: RE: [lojban] Dumb answers to good questions

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:09:13 +0100

>>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]> 09/25/01 06:03pm >>>
#At 02:51 PM 9/25/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
#>#Be that as it may, I find in looking at ancient postings that this came up
#>#once before, from you, and Cowan opined that ba'e was the focus
#>#marker. Much earlier, back in 1991, we apparently said that focus was
#>#conveyed primarily by position, with primary focus on the beginning of the
#>#sentence.
#>
#>It would help if you could include pointers to the messages in question,
#>so we can see whether we concur with your reading of them. The only
#>focus marker I remember is "kau".

cf. e.g.

http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9412/msg00344.html

#I just plugged "focus" into Jay's archive searcher. The following were on 
#the first 2 pages of 10 of the 167 references:
#
#http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9110/msg00027.html 
#http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9712/msg00036.html 
#
#Also on the first page:
#http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9710/msg00228.html 
#deals with "even" as a focus marker in English, which has come up multiple 
#times as well, probably not using the word "focus" every 
#time. Unfortunately "even" may be too common a word to do a search on. It 
#gives 3012 hits, though the couple listed first have "even" in the subject 
#and may indeed be about that issue.

These and some perfunctory further browsing don't lead me to conclude that
the focus issue was ever sorted out, except in as much as kau seems formerly
to have been a focus marker.

#> >#The logical way of marking focus, if focus is an important feature of
#>#>language,
#>#>#is to ... *mark it*.
#>#>
#>#>You can't mark it if you don't know what it is -- the marking would be
#>#>meaningless.
#>#
#>#I don't understand this statement. If you don't know what the focus is,
#>#then how can you even refer to it?
#>
#>I mean that if you don't know what Focus is then you can't mark it.
#>It's no good saying "Let this cmavo signify Blah" is you are unable to
#>offer any sort of adequate defintition or characterization of Blah.
#
#Actually, it is a tried and true Loglan and Lojban design technique %^)

I know. I'm the one who keeps on harping on about the incompletion and
inadequacy of the technique!

#Look at kau, tu'a, and all manner of other things (and ce'u, which was not 
#my addition but was clearly added before it was characterized).  

Actually, ce'u was pretty thoroughly discussed before it was added.

#I've had 
#pretty good instincts as to when something is needed in the language, even 
#if I cannot formally define it.  

Your instincts may be good, but the definitions of many things are so inadequate
that the words essentially do not exist qua words. They give rise to long debates
about "What does X mean?" and to conflicting usage.

#And I don't mind being wrong in my initial 
#characterization if something turns out to be more useful ("useful" being 
#key here, because however we may baseline the design, we are not baselining 
#usage).
#
#>Words -- and linguistic forms in general -- are pairings of sound and
#>meaning. A sound alone is not a word. Until you add the meaning, then,
#>you don't have a proper word.
#
#%^)
#
#We must have a lot of improper words in Lojban.  

I know. I've said so many a time.

#I'm glad we seem to be able to communicate using them in spite of this.

And also many's the time I've pointed out that our ability to communicate
in spite of them is testimony partly to our all being anglophones and partly
to our excellence at glorking. It's hardly any kind of testimony to the
merits of Lojban; people have been able to communicate using Glosa
and any number of similar auxlang abortions.

--And.