Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:47:40 -0500

At 05:43 PM 11/13/01 -0500, Craig wrote:
> >> Oh, and I seem to rememeber you using 'xu' and '.ui' the last time this
> >> came up. Is 'xu' being in UI the only thing that bothers you about se
> >> cmavo? If you want to junk something, I'd hope there is at least more
>than
> >> one instance of it annoying you.
>
>I missed this comment the first time, so I will respond now. The answer is
>that xu and .ui are a particularly blatant example, but far from the only
>one. I also don't think that lerfu should be a seperate cmavo when the most
>common use is as pro-sumti - which should put them in KOhA.

Except that pro-sumti are not the ONLY use of lerfu, so limiting them to 
KOhA would either be too restrictive or misleading.

> >I mostly disagree with Craig's hatred of selma'o. He's railing against
> >the whole system because of, apparently, a mistaken idea of their
> >purpose.
>
>I like the idea of putting cmavo in classes by function.

The problem with this is that we did not design cmavo or their classes 
functionally. The language was designed to have an unambiguous formal 
grammar. The original concept was that there were three parts of speech: 
brivla, cmavo, and cmene. But an unambiguous formal grammar required that 
cmavo be divided up, because some cmavo did not make any sense in some 
positions.

>I dislike how it
>was implemented. If two things are not identical in their function within
>the sentence (the ''se cmavo'') then they should not be put in the same
>selma'o, e.g. xu, the attitudinal that has nothing to do with attitudes.

Easy - just call it "selma'o UI" and not "attitudinals". Coin a different 
word for "attitudinal" as well as a different one for functional 
class. But don't expect much agreement as to what the functional classes 
of cmavo are, because we have in many cases devised new functions for cmavo 
merely because they were grammatically permitted in some circumstances that 
were not necessarily "designed" to make sense.

>Furthermore, consider the other problem with UI. Is "(some UI) le broda cu
>brode" asserting that 'le broda cu brode'? You definitely can't say yes and
>include .e'o, .e'u, or many people's interpretation of .a'o - but you can't
>say no and include .ui, zo'o, or .iu, to name a few examples. This is a
>serious grammatical difference.

No. That is a a semantic difference. The structure of the sentence is 
identical.

>Maybe call one UI and one XU, or something,
>because then it is possible to say, for instance, "all UI have the same
>function, the expressing of emotion, while all XU have the function of
>removing the assertive value of the bridi to express something about it
>without having to claim it is true or nesting it inside of a ''nu'' phrase."

But there is no agreement as to which members of UI fill which "functions".

>I would like to see the x2 of cmavo filled by the actual function of the
>cmavo, rather than some arbitrary capital letters.

You want a different word, which associates words with their function as 
opposed to their grammatical roles.

> >However, I believe that from usage some selma'o will eventually combine.
> >What is the grammatical distinction between ZEhA, ZAhO, FAhA, and PU?
>
>The same as the distinction between UI and XU, in my hypothetical example.

If you look in the formal grammar, these clearly have a grammatical 
distinction.

For example you can say
puza'o le broda cu klama
But if you try to say
za'opu le broda cu klama

the parser will insert a KU after za'o, and it will not be part of the 
sumti tcita for le broda.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org