Subject: Re: Some ideas/questions (long)

From: "oskar2379" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 16:59:24 -0000

> > But why is this seperation so important?
> 
> Because tanru are intentionally imprecise. They allow speakers and
> listeners to communicate intuitively. Lujvo are by intention as 
well-defined
> as gismu, which means they may be broad and vague, but not 
ambiguous.

Well, lujvo offer no more precision by just looking at them than 
tanru do, its just that they have precise definitions in the 
dictionary. This is the problem I was addressing when adding cmavo 
inbetween them to specify. That way, no lujvo would ever need to be 
defined.

> It's all right for there to be missing information from tanru:
> the price of infinite precision is infinite verbosity. If we
> add an element for cause, the next question will be "But just *how*
> does the liquid cause craziness?". And if we pin that down, the
> question can be repeated indefinitely.

Well, we _could_ pin it down, but with a cmavo, not another place in 
the predicate (assuming lojban has a cmavo for 'by means of' 
or 'using method...').

> My meaning was that Lojban doesn't really classify relations at all:
> the gismu list is a large and disorderly bag whose merit is that it
> blankets semantic space, not that it divides it up neatly.

But there must be some pattern that that everything follows. If 
something doesn't fit the pattern we know there is something wrong 
with it. Using this method we can eventually have a system that is 
completely regular.

> It *could* be expressed as a lujvo. For that matter, "mamta" could 
be
> expressed as a lujvo too. The gismu are not intended to be a 
minimal
> basis set.

You're right, mamta should be parent-female :)
Maybe that will be the first thing I try to do...split gismu up. It 
will take a while but I'm only 16 so I have a lot of time.

> > But if it *depends* on something, wouldn't the statement be 
> > conditional?
> > I understand that the reaction also depends on x1, but x1 is what 
> > commits the action so that's a given.
> 
> Nothing "given" about it, or rather the dependency on both subject 
and
> environment is what is "given". In another worldview, the subject 
would
> be mostly irrelevant, and all the credit for the response would be
> due to the environment.

But x4 seems to just serve to narrow it down, as if x1 *only* 
responds this way under these circumstances. x1 on the other hand is 
essential; its the agent (I'm not sure if this is the right term...I 
have never taken a linguistics class).

But it gets even more confusing because x4 implies that x1's response 
is habitual; x1 *habitually* reacts this way under these 
circumstances.

> > Right, so the state of x2 after it has been reflected is x4 
(sorry if 
> > my wording is confusing).
> 
> But that's not a change in x2. The fact that you are or are not
> reflected in a mirror at some instant does not represent any 
alteration
> to your state, any more than the fact that I am or am not looking 
at you
> does. Your wording is not confusing, but it is (metaphysically) 
confused.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, that's true. But the 
meaning acts the same way as when x2 is actually physically changed. 
That's all I meant.

> > In other words, it refers to the part of x2 that was changed (the 
> > location). In minra, the part of x2 that was changed is the 
image. 
> 
> A location (and an image) are not parts!

Maybe 'parts' was the wrong word...they are the part of the object 
that is affected (dangiit there I go using the word again ><). 'To 
go' deals with location, 'to freeze' deals with temperature, 'to 
reflect' deals with image.

I have an idea. Compare it to the verb 'imitate' since they're 
meanings are similar. I will make up a predicate since I dont think 
lojban has one:

x1 imitates x2 to observer/point x3 as x4

x2 is the direct object, x3 is the audience, and x4 is what x1 
represents x2 as (the result of the action). The meaning acts as if 
it actually changes x2, even though it doesn't.

> > But then again, I may 
> > have misunderstood x3. Is it sort of like 'by standard/frame of 
> > referance'? It sort of messes up the system because all the 
other 'by 
> > standards' are attributive like 'foolish' and 'small'.
> 
> Not really. The paradigm case is that you (x3) look into a mirror 
(x1)
> and see the image (x4) of a cat (x2). The image of the cat is not 
the
> cat; exactly what the image is, depends on where you are.

'the image of a cat'. The word 'of' usually implies association, as 
if it were a *part* of the cat.

---

From: "oskar2379" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 16:59:24 -0000

well-defined
ambiguous.

be
minimal

and
would

(sorry if 
alteration
at you
confused.

image. 

other 'by 
(x1)
the