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

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT)

cu'u la .and.

> #The second is the key information vs. the non-key information in a sentence;
> #that's what's usually meant by Topic/Focus.
> I agree, except that I think that the practise of calling non-key info 'topic'
> is unfortunate & gives rise to much confusion. So let's knock it on the head
> in this discussion.

I prefer to call this Topic/Focus and call Topic/Comment Theme/Rheme
instead, but hey, su terminologia e mi terminologia. :-)

> #Logicosemantics has been left to attitudinals in the past. I offer {da'i}
> #and {kau} as an example.
> Ah, so here is where you disagree with me, is it?
> Rather than argue about those examples, I will grant your point in
> principle, but I would also claim that certain logical operators were
> assigned to cmavo shoved in UI as a quick-and-dirty solution, so that
> the ability of the language to express the meanings was not retarded
> by long debate and researches about the proper logical analysis.

And I agree with this too. I don't regard it as a bad thing that we've
kept cutting Gordian knots with these things, but nor do I
think people should be barred from doing logical analyses later on (or
hell, even now.)

(Yes, I know we're bending over backwards to accomodate each other, but
there's a time, of course, when that's just as necessary as it is, in
other times, to say {.i pe'a mi sanli le vizystu gi'e ka'enai zukte lo
drata})

> But in the current situation we have no UI that is a dedicated
> focus marker, so we have the choice of (a) coopting a cmavo that
> has some other function (or, similar, reclaiming kau), (b) adding an
> experimental cmavo, or ) ) [can't turn fucking AutoCorrect off]
> ( c ) using the structural means I've been advocating our
> exploration of.

Where, being a Fundamentalist, I will for my part advocate first (a), then
(c), then (b) as only a last resort. My (a), namely {ra'u}, better accords
with my linguistic ideology, which is that focus is more pragmatics than
not; but absolutely do go ahead with the cleft, and see if it'll work.
Obviously our knee-jerk reaction is that it has the horrid ghastly {du}
and looks like English, so it can't be any good; but let that be proven or
disproven, not fashion-mongered by diffuse notions of malglico.

> #So it is not outlandish that this be covered by an attitudinal, rather
> #than logicosemantics.
> Not outlandish, no. But still, do we have to go straight to option
> (a) or (b) without trying ( c )?

Not... necessarily. You're free to try. In the interim, I'm happy with
{ra'u}, but like I say, if you can get this to work, I'll be very
interested. The {du} cleft, after all, is quite far from advocating any
change to the grammar; I'd not been duly careful in my response.

> That's really two issues conflated -- is it part of pragmatic or
> semantic/encoded
> meaning?, and is its proper (e.g. cognitive) representation a
> (quasi)logical one?

Eh. I know my kneejerk reaction, which is that Lojban keeps the two
distinct formally as well as semantically --- the canard (for it has
turned out to be a canard) that you can strip attitudinals out of a text,
and it would have the same logical meaning. The question that arises to
response is, is it still the proper business of Lojban to attempt to keep
the two kinds of meaning different, by using only attitudinals for
rhetoric? Is it legitimate to say word order in Lojban has pragmatic
effects, or are those purely epiphenomenal? Good theoretical question,
that I'm loath to answer...
(What usage will have to say of it will be part sludgey natlang
interference, and part common-sense notions of information flow. I think
there'll be more of the latter, though.)

> Well, that's not a daft suggestion. Although I think Lojbab's
> exhortation for there to be canonical examples of all cmavo is not
> a good use of our limited labours, for most cmavo, canonical examples
> of the discursives would certainly be a great help.

We disagree in the general case (because I think the general canonical
examples a sine qua non), but agree here, so that's cool. I doubt anyone
has a clear idea what {ra'u} means applied below the bridi level, so it
might as well be a rhetorical notion of focus...

> Anyway, even if
> la djan ra'u klama
> works, the strategy in
> da poi ke'a klama cu du la djan
> should still be explored.

Well, sure. At the mo', it doesn't have the right amount of oomph for me
(no tangible emphasis, like I see in the English cleft.)
But then, I'm being deliberately woolly here. :-)

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the
podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders
began to shake, and He wept.
[http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html]

Nick Nicholas. [email-masked] http://www.opoudjis.net