Subject: Re: [lojban] Some ideas/questions (long)

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 23:07:59 -0400

oskar2379 scripsit:

> 1. I noticed that one must not only learn the (~3,000 word?) 
> vocabulary of gismu, but also the several forms of rafsi for each 
> gismu. This seems a little unnecessary; why not have just one rafsi 
> for each word?

That's almost true already. Let's ignore the 4- and 5-letter rafsi,
since they are completely predictable from the gismu form, and use
"rafsi" to mean just 3-letter rafsi. Of the 1342 gismu that exist at
present, 239 have no rafsi, 776 have just one rafsi, and only 327 have
two or three (only 3 actually have three, and that was done primarily for
pedagogical illustrations). Of the 324 with two rafsi, only 7 have CCV
and CVV but not CVC forms; since there are a lot of possible CVC rafsi,
it is cheap to assign spare CVC rafsi even where there is no strong
justification for doing so.

> Or better yet, why not use the three-letter rafsi all 
> the time? That would shorten text considerably and, when the words 
> are only one syllable long, it could reduce the need for all the word 
> shortcuts that may also be complicated to learn. Not only that, but 
> using rafsi full-time means that, in order to make lujvo, all you 
> must do is jam words together.

It would also eliminate the difference between tanru and lujvo, an
essential Loglan/Lojban concept.

> 2. Speaking of lujvo, I noticed some things I don't understand. First 
> of all, they are put together in English-order when it makes much 
> more sense for them to go in the opposite order. For example,
> 
> the tanru 'cmalu prenu' means small person, but lojbanically it looks 
> like 'cmalu' is going in the x1 place of 'prenu'. It would make more 
> sense to go the other way (I know there's a way how to, but it should 
> be the default order).

There is nothing wrong with using "prenu cmalu", a person type of small
thing, rather than vice versa. In symmetrical tanru of this type,
either order is usually fine.

> 3. Also, I thought of a way in which you could ease the ambiguity of 
> their meanings. Your book uses the tanru example 'klama jubme'. Does 
> it mean 'table which goes', 'table of a goer' ('table used by a 
> goer'?), or 'table when it goes'?

Any of the above. If you think a single meaning is worth nailing down,
you create a lujvo and define its meaning.

> Couldn't the distinction be made by placing a cmavo inbetween 
> them? 'table when it goes' could be 'le jubme jo klama', 'table that 
> goes' could be 'le jubme klama' (no cmavo), and 'table of a goer' 
> could be ... 'le jubme pe le klama' (though that wouldn't be a 
> tanru...).

Yes, that works too. The point of tanru is that sometimes one has no
desire to be precise.

> The problem arises with something like 'fenki litki ' (crazy liquid, 
> or liquid that causes you to be crazy). 'fenki' is {x1 is crazy by 
> standard x2}, there is no causative agent in the predicate, so this 
> tanru is false.

Not false, simply not fully explicit.

> If we made it a lujvo with gasnu, fekygau (or gaufek, 
> using my word order), it would read 'x1 causes x2 to be crazy by 
> standard x3', we could make the tanru 'le litki gaufek' where 'litki' 
> falls in the x1 place of gaufek, meaning that the liquid is what 
> causes the craziness (and then 'le litki fenki' would mean liquid 
> that is crazy). Of course, I am using the backwards word order that I 
> just made up when I put together these tanru.

"gaufek" is not well-formed, because it doesn't end in a vowel; otherwise,
your reasoning is entirely sound.

> 4. Since we are on the subject of changing predicate places, there 
> were some discrepencies that I saw in the way they are. Your book 
> said there were three types of relationships; static (John is the 
> father of Sam), active (John hits Sam), and attributive (John is 
> taller than Sam).

You are reading too much into a casual example. Lojban does not classify
relationships this way.

> x1 is a cup/glass/tumbler/mug/vessel/[bowl] containing contents x2, 
> and of material x3 
> 
> This predicate seems to jam two different words into one...'x1 is a 
> cup' and 'x1 contains x2'. This word seems to be an oddball and sort 
> of confused me when I was skimming your word lists.

The point is that an object which doesn't have any contents, at least
potentially, has no claim to be a kabri.

> Another oddball 
> is the bottle/jar/urn example above...'x1 is a bottle' plus 'x1 is 
> made of x2'? And why must lid be specified in this predicate?

Because the presence of the lid is what makes it a botpi rather than
a kabri or perhaps a patxu or even something else. "Lid" can be
identified with cork or stopper as well.

> klaku offers a reason for the action in x3, yet I believe lojban 
> already has words for 'for the purpose/reason of...' so I don't see 
> why this is necessary.

Emotion predicates generally have a place for purpose, for reasons of
both convenience and metaphysical necessity: to weep is not merely to
shed tears (as in the presence of raw onions), but rather to have an
emotional response *to* something.

> x4 and x5 are more complicated. The 'under conditions' in frati 
> sounds like a connective to me (the logical connective IFF) and thus 
> shouldn't be in the predicate.

The point is that the response or reaction x2 to the stimulus x3 depends
not only on the subject x1 but also on the environment x4, and it is not
possible to say which is logically prior, the subject or the environment.

> The 'as x4' in minra refers to the 
> state of the direct object after the action.

Minra4 is the reflection or echo, the imago of x2.

> Similarly, the x2 in 
> klama refers to the state of x1 after the action (or more 
> specifically, the location).

It does refer to the location, but *not* to the thing located there.

> Both these predicates are the very same; the difference is that the 
> x5 in the first one is moved to x1 in the second one (the cause). So 
> if we changed klama to 'x1 transports x2 to x3 from x4 by means x5', 
> it would all work out.

You are not allowing for auto-locomotion. The earth klama, but it does
not benji (there is no agent pushing it around the sun, except
metaphorically).

> minra seems to be another oddball that combines two predicates into 
> one, that is, 'x1 reflects x2 as x3' and 'x1 sends/transmits x2 to 
> x3...' and thus should be seperated.

Eh? Minra has four distinct roles: mirror/reflector, object of
reflection, observer/viewpoint, and imago. Your first version omits the
viewpoint, which is metaphysically unsustainable: the reflection you see
is not the one I see, if only because of our differing locations.

> fanva is another oddball because 
> it has two later states; the language and the actual text 
> (translation-result). This could probably be altered to fit the 
> system as simply 'x1 translates x2 to x3'.

Fanva *is* an oddball; it's designed to handle all the cases, though
it's typical for actual sentences about translation to default any
or all of x3, x4, x5.

> 4.3 Attributive relationships can have a causative agent too, 
> although lojban leaves it out; 'x1 is white' vs. 'x1 whitens x2'. 

We try as much as possible to omit agent places in favor of either
cause places or nothing at all, because they can always be added
back with gasnu. There are of course many exceptions.

> An oddball that I don't think fits is fengu (x1 is angry/mad at x2 
> for x3), in which the receiver of the anger (x2) and the action that 
> caused the anger (x3) are seperated when it should be 'x1 is 
> angry/mad about x2 (abstraction)'. Compare it to badri: x1 is sad 
> about x2 (abstraction).

I agree that fengu doesn't fit well, and should probably have been
rationalized.

-- 
John Cowan [email-masked] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
--_Specht v. Netscape_

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 23:07:59 -0400