auto-insertion or VSO

[cbmvax!uunet!GNU.AI.MIT.EDU!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!bob]

Here is a discussion of the suggestions concerning Verb-Subject-Object
order and inserting previous sumti in empty places.

The auto-insertion suggestion comes from Jim Carter.  I should say
that I may have misunderstood him.  I find it almost impossible to
read Jim Carter's postings.  They are too complex for me.  Jim
presumes his readers are intelligent and cooperative.  I am
intelligent, but not cooperative.  As a practical matter, I lack the
vitality and the time to be cooperative.  I need to be spoon fed
succinct chunks, otherwise I skip the feast.

Anyhow, here is my understanding of this recent discussion:

1. The purpose of the observative is to make the following
   grammatical:

        farlu
        Falls.

    This is the sort of sentence learners often say.

2. Next, observe to where the fall occurs:

        farlu be le  loldi
        Falls to the (specific) floor (that I have in mind).

3. The first question is, should

        farlu be le loldi
        Falls to the (specific) floor (that I have in mind).

    mean the same as

        farlu le loldi

    or should the latter mean, `The floor falls.', using a VSO grammar?

  To me, the `The floor falls.' interpretation is very vivid: when I
  was in third grade a part of the floor of the classroom fell into
  the room below.  [No one was hurt; we spent the next few weeks in
  that class room with the hole roped off and passed notes to the kids
  below when the teacher wasn't looking.  I doubt that contemporary
  school administrators would be so casual.]

3a. In current lojban,  `farlu le loldi'  means `falls to the floor'

   You need to say   `farlu fa le loldi'   to mean,
   `The floor falls (to someplace unspecified) (from someplace unspecified).'

4. The next question concerns the subject of abstractions:

   Suppose you see me putting wedges under the legs of a wobbly table.
   You ask what I am doing.  I might say:

       naku             mi djica  <lenu          farlu      le loldi>
       It is false that I  desire  the  event of falling to the floor

   The sentence omits the faller.  I may be referring to a vase or to
   pencils that role off the table.

   However, in another context, I may be referring to myself: I may
   want to climb on the table to fix a light.

   Lojban allows this ambiguity; you can specify the subject if you wish.

   (Yea, I know I am supposed to climb on a stool or step ladder to
   fix the light; but I don't, unless one is nearby.)

5. Should the grammar be changed.  Here are two suggestions:

5a. James Carter suggests replicating the previous sumti.

    In this case, when you hear the sentence you automatically and
    effortlessly insert the most recent sumti previous to the abstract
    clause in the unmarked place of the abstract clause:

       naku             mi djica  <lenu         [mi] farlu      le loldi>
       It is false that I  desire  the  event of me  falling to the floor

    (Side note: I said "you automatically and effortlessly insert the
    sumti" to emphasize a characteristic of grammatical constructs
    that people use, which is that humans deal with them without
    conscious effort or thought, in contrast to semantic constructs.
    For example, I effortlessly put tense and number into the
    preceding sentence.)

    My understand of what Jim Carter suggested is that if I want to
    talk about something unspecified falling to the floor, then I am
    required to use "zo'e" to indicated the unspecified subject:

       naku             mi djica  <lenu          zo'e
       It is false that I  desire  the  event of something unspecified

                farlu      le loldi>
                falling to the floor.

    I find this requirement odd.  I can understand why you might want
    it---it forces a different kind of precision; but to me it makes
    more sense for an unspecified entity to remain unspecified.

    In other words, I think that

       naku             mi djica  <lenu          farlu      le loldi>
       It is false that I  desire  the  event of falling to the floor

    should continue to avoid expressing the subject of falling to the floor.

5b. An alternative suggestion is to presume that Verb-Subject-Ojbect
    order is in effect if there is no sumti in the conventional sumti
    position.  In this case

       naku mi djica <lenu farlu le loldi>

    would mean "*It is false that I desire the floor to fall."

    Again, in order to say that I want to avoid something unspecified
    from falling to the floor, I would have to say "zo'e" explicitly.
    I don't want to do that.

Hence I think the lojban grammar is OK as is.

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    Rattlesnake Mountain Road        (413) 298-4725 or (617) 253-8568 or
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (617) 876-3296 (for messages)