[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject

Subject: Loose Ends

5th of 6 related messages

This message addresses a couple of loose ends that fall out of the
previous discussions.

Consider two apparently unrelated features of Lojban:

- In discussing sumti-raising, we tried to note that "tu'a le sumti" is
equivalent to "lenu le sumti cu XXX", where XXX is some unspecified
selbri.  You cannot use "broda" which is a nominally assigned word just
as "ko'a" is.  Nor is "bu'a" correct; it corresponds to the bound
quantified variable "da".  We needed a selbri equivalent to "zo'e", the
'unspecified because I'm not bothering to - but it has a specific value'

- You are allowed to put places on a bridi with no specified relationship
in the place structure.  This occurs naturally if you supply 3 places on
a 2 place bridi.  But how do you describe that place.  There is no
non-specific member of BAI.

These two situations now come together as

5. 2 new cmavo for "unspecified bridi":

co'e (selma'o GOhA):  pro-bridi for an unspecified bridi
do'e (selma'o BAI):   case tag for an unspecified relationship

The memory hook here is "zo'e", the elliptically unspecified sumti.

"co'e" can be used as its own rafsi (affix) in compounds, though I'm
hard pressed to come up with a useful example.  Any takers?  John
suggested when proposing it:

    Note also that "co'e" (proposed for "unspecified bridi") can also serve
    as a rafsi:  "co'epre" = "unspecified type of person".

but this makes no distinction from simple "prenu", so why use it?

[Nora opines that someone may wish to use parallel structures in lujvo, as in:

    ti   xaupre
    This good-person.

    ti   xlapre
    This bad-person.

    ti   co'epre
    This unspecified-person.

but to me this seems more reasonable in tanru than in lujvo - the 3rd brivla
seems to be intended to mean 'unspecified as to goodness or badness - person'
while a different set of examples would suggest a different meaning.  This
context-dependent meaning is appropriate for tanru but NOT for lujvo.  Any
other ideas?]

6. Much of this many-part proposal is tied up in the use of selma'o BAI,
and we've been forced to re-examine what these are.  The specific
question is whether BAI is the exact equivalent of the gismu which we
selected as a memory hook.  Or in other words, is a member of BAI an
abbreviation for a specific FIhO construct.  This was not the original
intent, which was to decide on certain useful or needed roles (yes,
'cases' jimc) that could or should be useful in expanding bridi, and
then to pick words for them.  As a basis for this we used Jim Brown's
work for Institute Loglan, coupled with some research into case theory,
and the everyday, if malglico, analysis of English prepositional and
subordinate phrases.

Institute Loglan has TWO sets of these - case tags that are usable only
to label place structure places, and 'modal relative phrases' which are
used to attach non-place structure terms.  There is some overlap and
some commonality between these and the two are not interchangeable - the
case tags are more like our FA tags.  We wanted to have the capability
that Jim Brown intended for 'case tags' without the restrictions and
duality.  BAI was formed with the intention that every place structure
place could be labelled more or less accurately with one of these.  I
know that Nick and Ivan D. has challenged us on this - and the problem
in meeting this challenge is that we have drifted from this original,
rather more metaphorical use of BAI; the current meanings are too closely
tied to their associated gismu, and have lost touch with their original

Thus we have John Cowan's proposal:

  6.  Bogus "ci'a" tag:

      This tag is really two different concepts:  "fi'o cusku" (= "cu'u") and
      "fi'o finti" (which doesn't have a tag).  One refers to the "expresser",
      the other to the "creator".  "ci'a" is meant to mean "written by", but
      the question of whether the writing is recorded on a medium is secondary
      to the two other questions.

      The reason that "cu'u" is not the same as "fi'o finti" can be shown

      mi nelci la  .apasionatas. ne fi'o finti  la betoven.
      I  love  the Appassionata,    composed by Beethoven.

      mi nelci la  .apasionatas. pe cu'u                    la artr. rubenstain.
      I  love  the Appassionata     performed (expressed) by Artur Rubenstein.

      Note the "ne" vs.  "pe"; there is only one Appassionata as composed, but
      there are many performances of which I am specifying Rubenstein's.

      There are no "f" cmavo available, so if "finti" is to get a tag (freeing
      "ci'a") something else must change.  The candidates are:

            fa'i    VUhU    reciprocal of [fendi]
            fe'i    VUhU    divided by [fendi]
            fi'i    COI     hospitality, welcome to ...
            fo'i    KOhA    it8
            fu'i    UI      freely (attitudinal scale) [frili]
            fi'a    FA      place structure ?
            fi'e    GOhA    parent bridi
            fi'o    FIhO    selbri to modal
            fi'u    PA      fraction slash [fendi]

      Alternatively, "ci'a" can be declared to be the tag for "finti", and
      bugger the morphology.

I (lojbab) suspect a similar case could be made against "ja'o", and
"du'o" is a metaphorical use of "djuno" at the very least.

I support John's proposal, assigning "fi'e" and freeing "ci'a".  As
discussed in message 3, the current "fi'e" and "fai" get moved

John, on the other hand looked elsewhere for a cmavo, resulting in the

7.  Inverse fraction slash:

    This is "bi'u", and was intended for representing the reciprocal
    fractions like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc.  It also was meant to capture the
    reverse solidus, "\".  However, it is not a part of standard
    mathematics.  The reciprocal fractions can easily be handled with the
    ordinary slash, as /2, /3, /4, etc.  As for "\", it has no standard
    mathematical meaning.  Using "bi'u" for forward slash (instead of
    "fi'u") allows "fi'u" to be freed for the previous proposal.

I support the argument for eliminating "bi'u", but we need not change
"fi'u" given the other change proposed.  Since John forgot that "fi'u"
is derived from "frinu", this would have lost a valuable memory hook.

This solves the problem of one word in BAI, but not the general problem.
With regard to the BAI selma'o in general, we propose recognition that
FIhO equivalence may be inevitable, although we would prefer to keep
rather more metaphorical definitions.  Recognizing that there are some
horribly malglico metaphors, we intend to devise equivalences for BAI,
not necessarily to a gismu but possibly to some compound (lujvo) from
which we can derive the intended usage.  With the exception of "ci'a", I
suspect that most of these are best made as lujvo based on the current
gismu hook, and this means no other BAI members need to be changed.
However, some of the meanings of the BAI members, especially
SE-converted ones from the 'main use' we had in mind when we selected
the word, may change.  I'm asking John to take a first cut at this, and
it will be reviewed at LogFest prior to posting, given the shortness of
time before that event.
lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
         2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA