Re: Lojban duplications

[cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!jimc]

Art Protin writes:
> I am not sure how I want to argue this. For one thing, I see that this
> is a very logical extension of the distinction being made between
> "klama" and "litru", and for the other, I strongly disapprove of the
> distinction being made ... and want to abandon any gismu with the
> sole distinction of having fewer places.

I've reluctantly been dragged a small distance out of Art's camp by
Lojbab's arguments and by a counterexample I came across in Nick's
"Colossal Cave" text.  My former position was that each gismu should
have a definite and fixed list of essential places in the relation (and
in consequence, klama vs. litru is a bogus distinction since both
express the same relation and therefore must have the same places).

Nick translated "The walls are frozen rivers of orange rock". rirxe =
"x1 is a river of landmass x2".  There is no <BAI> for "made of
material" (and I think there should be).

1.  Nick used

        le  bitmu cu  dunja  rirxe flecu lo narju  rokci
        the walls are frozen river flows of orange rock

where flecu = "x1 is a current of x2 flowing to x3 from x4 (no route)".
Thus he injects a place for the material.  I think that to use flecu is
to cheat, and stubbornly insist on using rirxe as the main predicate as
is done in the English.  It's an outrageous restriction on our ability
to express our thoughts if you can't assert that x1 is a (something)
made of material x2, for any main selbri, not just the ones predefined
with a material place.  (No blame to Nick is intended for accomplishing
the mission the only way he could.)

2.  Per Lojbab, place structures are, at bottom, negotiated between the
users of the language, and the dictionary entries merely reflect the
negotiated real-world usage patterns.  This is particularly true of BAI
places, in particular, which BAI's (if any) are "essential" to the
relation.  In the rirxe example it's a numbered place which needs to be
instantly renegotiated.  So (jimc infers, definitely not agreeing),
just as in English, you don't get anally retentive about landmasses in
the dictionary and just say:

        le  bitmu cu  dunja  rirxe  lo narju  rokci
        the walls are frozen rivers of orange rock

3.  Per jimc, staying within the mainline grammar:

        le  bitmu cu  dunja  rirxe  fi'o sligu lo narju  rokci
        the walls are frozen rivers of   solid    orange rock

The problem with this is, while Lojbab assures me that "fi'o sligu X"
is just like "cu'u X" or any other BAI phrase, the form of the phrase
is a restrictive subordinate clause, as in "le du'u (le bitmu cu dunja
rirxe) cu se cusku la nik."  (...is said by Nick)  But "le du'u (le
bitmu cu dunja rirxe) cu sligu lo narju rokci" is ridiculously false.

(Note, there is no gismu that I can see which means only "x1 is made of
material x2"; all gismu with materials say "x1 is some kind of thing, made
of material x2", e.g. solid.)

4.  This construction sweeps the whole issue under the rug by making
parallel assertions -- but again, that's cheating.

        le  bitmu cu  dunja  rirxe  gi'e    narju  rokci
        the walls are frozen rivers and are orange rock

In all the gismu where materials arise, the material has a numbered
place, as in tanbo = "x1 is a board of material x2", and thus is
identified as an essential element of the relation (by Lojban Central,
yes I hear Bob Chassell's argument, I think it was).  I want Nick's
off-the-wall material place to be equally essential.  On the other
hand, going back to the cusku example above, I claim that the speaker
identification is never essential, so that the subordinate clause
format or interpretation is not only correct but is preferred by me to
the "real" BAI relation.  Also, Mark Shoulson argues convincingly that
if all possible BAI's and FI'O's are elliptically present as an
essential element in every relation, the practical and philosophical
job of analysing the relation becomes ridiculous.

It sounds like BAI and FI'O signal one grammatical form that represents
two meanings: an extra essential place in the relation, or a kind of
restrictive clause.  It will be necessary to distinguish clearly between
these meanings.

                -- jimc