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

lojban predicates

Recently, I suggested that

   >     mi klama
   >     I  come/go
   >
   > is incomplete.  In lojban, you yearn for a destination, departure,
   > path, and means.

Arthur Protin <protin@usl.com> disagrees:

   While I can easily accept that we need a far different model to
   think about lojban than the one we use for thinking about English,
   I reject any suggestion that

        mi klama

   is in any way incomplete.  The image that I construct in my mind
   is small corresponding to the small amount of data provided, and
   it has "hooks" where I might attach additional data like the
   destination.  But I do not yearn for the elipsed members of the
   relation any more than I would for any other piece of the whole
   picture (like why do you go or why do you think that I care that
   you go).

But you ought to yearn!  This is an advantage of lojban over English.

A gismu states a relationship among various entities. `klama' states a
relationship among:

    <comer/goer>
    <destination>
    <departure-location>
    <route>
    <means-of-transport>

A sentence using `klama' is about these five entitites.  An unspoken
entity is still there, even if unspoken.  This characteristic of
lojban is completely different from English, in which verbs on their
own usually specify a smaller relationship that is extended by the use
of helper words, such as `to', `from', `along', `by means of'.

Perhaps our English inspired way of writing gismu definitions is
misleading.

Here is how `klama' is defined in the current word list;

    klama          kla come
                    x1 comes/goes to x2 from x3 via x4 using means/vehicle x5

This form suggests that `klama' means `comes/goes'.

But consider this alternative form of definition:

    klama          kla x1: <comer/goer>
                       x2: <destination>
                       x3: <departure-location>
                       x4: <route>
                       x5: <means-of-transport>

In this form of the definition, the word (by which I mean, the five
letters) `klama' is *not* itself defined on its own at all!  Here you
can see that the word `klama' is a *label* for a relationship among
five entities.

This form of the definition enables you to see that

    mi klama le zarci le zdani le lalxu le karce

is translated as

    x1: comers/goers that are specified as I or we

        gismu: are in a relationship with

    x2: a destination I have in mind, the market,
    x3: a departure-location I have in mind, the house,
    x4: a route I have in mind, the lake,
    x5: a means I have in mind, the car.

This translation reminds us that *every* gismu can be translated as
`is/are in a relationship with'.  What changes when you change words
is not that phrase, but the values of the sumti with which the gismu
is associated.

For example, from the words:

    skori sor ko'i sko  x1: <cord/cable/rope/woven-strands>
                        x2: <cord-material>

    trati               x1: <taut/tense/strained-entity>
                        x2: <direction-of-tautness>

    bloti lot lo'i blo  x1: <boat (vehicle) >
                        x2: <boat-cargo>

we can construct the following sentence;

    le skori cu trati le bloti

This translates to:

    x1: taut/tense/strained-entity I have in mind, the rope

        gismu: is in a relationship with

    x2: a direction-of-tautness I have in mind, the boat.

Again notice that the gismu `trati' is itself translated by the phrase
`is in a relationship with'.

This way of thinking about how the lojban sentence works is
un-English.

Now, to return to Arthur Protin's comments regarding the sentence

    mi klama

without the other places specified.

Arthur says:

   The use of "klama" implies that there is some destination but the
   importance of that data is clearly unspecified and will probably be
   given a default importance of "nearly nil".  Other dialog/monolog
   is required to elevate that "slot" to any greater prominence.  If
   that piece of the whole picture becomes both important and
   unspecified, I will inquire as I would for any other data I need to
   satisfy my view of that picture.

As far as I can see, Arthur is applying English language thinking
unnecessarily to the lojban.  It may be that the unspecified places
are unimportant--I am not contesting that.  What I am arguing is that
the lojban notion of `klama' is always about a relationship among five
entities.

I translate

    mi klama
as
    x1: comers/goers that are specified as I or we

        gismu: are in a relationship with

    x2: a destination, unspecified,
    x3: a departure-location, unspecified,
    x4: a route, unspecified,
    x5: a means, unspecified.

When you translate `mi klama' like this, you certainly yearn to fill in
the unspecified slots.

Perhaps `yearn' is too strong a word.  After all, if the speaker does
not specify the place, he or she is suggesting it is not important;
and perhaps you don't think it important either.  So you do not yearn
very strongly.  But I think a fluent lojban hearer will be *aware*
that such a sentence contains unspecified places.

So what is the use of marking an unspecified place with "zo'e", which
is the elliptical/unspecified pro-sumti cmavo?

To me, a speaker who says

    mi klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e

is telling me that he or she is intentionally leaving those spaces
unspecified.  The speaker is making a formal claim that the
information is not important to me--telling me that the speaker has
not forgot the other places but is consciously leaving it out.

On being asked how much his yacht cost, J. P. Morgan is said to have
answered: "If you have to ask, you cannot afford it"

Suppose you were selling such a yacht.  The gismu relating the
entitites: price, the thing with the price, the buyer and the seller
is:

    jdima dim di'a  x1: <price/cost>
                    x2: <priced-entity>
                    x3: <buyer>
                    x4: <price-setter/vendor>

As a salesman, you could say:

    zo'e jdima le bloti la morgan. mi

which translates as

    x1: price/cost, overtly unspecified,

        gismu: is in a relationship with

    x2: a priced entity, that I have in mind, a specific boat,
    x3: a buyer, that I have in mind, Mr. Morgan,
    x4: a price-setter, that I have in mind, specificly, me or us.


What about modal operators in the BAI lexeme?  Should a hearer yearn
for additional information that might be spoken using a modal
operator?  My answer is "sometimes".  A well designed gismu relates
all the entities about which you usually desired information.  If the
gismu does relate all the regularly desired places, then it needs to
be redefined to do so.  But the regularly supplied information may be
insufficient.

Why am I going to market?

    mi klama le zarci mu'i le li'i xagji

is translated as

    x1: comers/goers that are specified as I or we

        gismu: are in a relationship with

    x2: a destination I have in mind, the market,
    x3: a departure-location, unspecified,
    x4: a route, unspecified,
    x5: a means, unspecified.

        modal operator: because of motive

    x-extra: a specfic experience I have in mind, hunger.


Food for thought?

(Ha!  I won`t translate that.  But here are gismu:  :-)


    cidja          dja  x1: <food/edible-entity>
                        x2: <eater>

    sidbo sib si'o      x1: <idea/concept/thought>
                        x2: <entity-thought-about>
                        x3: <thinking-entity>

    pensi pen pei       x1: <thinking-entity>
                        x2: <entity-thought-about>

    jinvi jiv ji'i      x1: <opinion-holder>
                        x2: <opinion/notion-thought-true>




    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)