Subject: Re: Three (4) more questions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:39:12 EDT

In a message dated 4/16/2001 9:23:45 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Without using sets, how can "There are many rats" be said? (The book 
> says it as <le'i ratcu cu barda
> 

Literally, {so'i da ratcu}

<As I understand lujvo, any lujvo may be defined *W/O* tanru, using be 
and poi/voi (or je) [assuming that <lo broda je brode> is the same as 
<lo broda poi brode>, and <le broda je brode> is the same as <le broda 
voi brode>.

This looks inherently implausible, since many lujvo (from many tanru, indeed) 
are not genus-species (class-subclass) types.  A goodly number are pulling up 
later arguments (and, indeed, subject raised later arguments), for example. 
 Therein lies at least one source of the semantic ambiguity of class.  Even 
within your limits, however, there is the difference between {poi} and {voi} 
({je} won't enter much because of the inaccuracy it introduces -- a big mouse 
is not both a mouse and big, after all).
A shelled insect might be {cakcinki} in the {cinki poi se calku} sense, buta 
beetle is {cinki VOI se calku} -- the definer's choice and to Hell with 
anything other than is convenience.

<Why does the dictionary have an English gloss (which as I see it is 
meaningless many times [for example brabloti = ship (?!)]), but not 
the 'long' version of the lujvo, using poi and be? This would be 
a 'real' definition, which can include the entire place structure.>

A fair question and a good suggestion, if you'd like to carry it out.  But it 
would not always clarify matters completely and the English gloss often does 
(ship is a big boat -- big enough to carry other boats). Making the 
constructor think the long form through might make for better lujvo, too.

Since tanru are (very) semantically ambiguous, how can we allow 
ourselves to define language concepts using tanru (e.g. <sumti tcita>, 
<se steci srana>, etc? Those would mean extremely 'wide' concepts!>

Language concepts are extremely wide too.  And the narrow definition is in 
the grammar.

<Why the hell does <brivla> mean what it means? How do the two terms 
connect, and why would it mean only one word? What's the real 
difference between a brivla and a selbri, then? I mean, <nu prenu kei> 
is lo valsi, isn't it?>

Skipping a long story of sloppy communication and mutual misunderstandings 
and misapplied technical terms (in short, the history of Loglan/Lojban 
technical terminology), this is a hard one to answer -- and the tale is too 
long for even a face-to-face.  And it is probably too late to try to do it 
all over again right, but a brief attempt may be ok.  {bridi} means 
"predication," a predicate-centered construction that can be asserted, 
questioned, applied as a description and so on.  At the center of a 
predication is, obviously, a predicate, which may be expressed in one or 
several words and with a variety of auxiliary devices.  A one-word predicate 
is a brivla (actually, as the list notes, a selbrivla) and it keeps that 
status even when it is combined into a more complex predicate in a 
predication.  The predicate of a predication is (automatically) a selbri, 
whatever it is made up of -- one word, several in an unmarked structure, or 
in a structure of whatever complexity. And no, {nu prenu kei} is not a valsi 
but a valsi porsi (porsi lo valsi).  It is a potential selbri, though nota 
functional one as given, but it is not a brivla, since not a valsi.