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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:49:39 +0000

>>> <[email-masked]> 11/13/01 09:55pm >>>
[email-masked] writes:
#> I think part of the problem is that Lojban has a much narrower definition
#> of 'grammar' and 'grammatical' than is normal in linguistics and than is
#> normally included within the 'grammar' of natural languages. This is not
#> necessarily a Mistake, because an invented language is a different
#> sort of creature from a natural language. At any rate, the role of a
#> grammar is normally taken to be the rules that define a mapping from
#> phonological structures to sentence meanings; the grammar generates
#> all the well-formed sentences of the language, where sentences are
#> defined as pairings between meanings and phonological forms.
#> Lojban 'grammar' does something totally different: it defines a set
#> of phonological strings and structurings of the words therein, but says 
#> nothing about their meanings. Natural language simply has no
#> analogue of this 'pseudogrammar'.
# 
#While I agree that there are many questions about Lojban usage and meaning 
#that are unresolved, I have to protest And's description -- and prescription 
#-- on grammar. While his usage is not idiosyncratic, it is not nearly so 
#universal as he would make it seem: still current phrases like 
#"transformational grammar". "phrase structure grammar", "Montague grammar" 
#and the like refer to things in the same class and role as Lojban grammar 

I would grant your point but not your examples. Transformational Grammar is
the sort of grammar (mapping sounds to meanings) that I was talking about.
You're the expert on Montague, but all the same, it's my impression that
that is what Montague grammar does to. OTOH, Phrase Structure Grammar
is indeed a more abstract kind of thing, that does not necessarily involve
meanings. So let me backtrack and say "There are two different senses
of _grammar_ prevalent in linguistics, only one of which is equivalent
to the Lojban use of the term".

#(with the difference that Lojban grammar, being prescriptive, actually does 
#what it says it is to do). The most And can clearly say of Lojban is thatit 
#has only half of what an ideal grammar would have (which is 2/3 more than any 
#other language has, by the way), a mapping between sound sequences and 
#grammatical utterances. What is missing is the semantic component, from 
#grammatical utterance to sentence meaning, where Lojban is not significantly 
#better off than many ordinary langauges (except for having secure grammatical 
#sentences) and may even be behind in some areas. Many grammarians would be 
#seriously put out if parts of the sentence to meaning mechanism were 
#incorporated into the sound to sentence mechanism, though, again, this is not 
#a universal objection and several such combinations have enjoyed a measureof 
#success over the last half-century (and some have been disasters, but so have 
#some pure cases).  

We could debate this, but it would be a debate about natlangs and natlang
linguistics. I think the simplest response is that describing/defining an
existing language is very different from defining a language that is in
the process of being invented, and it is risky to assume that properties
of the one carry over analogously to the other.

#In any event, "pseudogrammar" for Lojban's quite 
#successful syntax is misleadingly denigrating, as though Lojban's situation 
#were somehow different from -- and inferior to -- that of natural languages.  
  
'Pseudogrammar' is misleadingly denigrating, but Lojban's situation is both
superior and inferior to that of natural languages. It is inferior in that the
macrogrammar of natlangs are vastly more complete and elaborated,
but it is superior in that what so far exists of the language is incontrovertibly
and explicitly documented.

--And.