dikyjvo essay.

[cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!nsn]

The following is intended for inclusion in the soon-to-be-published
proto-dictionary. Comments requested, particularly from Carter, Cowan and
LeChevalier.


Lujvo place structure guidelines ("dikyjvo")

In constructing lujvo without the aid of a dictionary (something likely to
occur for a long time), the novice is likely to be at a loss in coming up
with a place structure. In doing so, these four patterns may be considered:

For, say, the lujvo {sondji}, the relation between the two component gismu,
{sonci} and {djica}, may be:

{je}: ko'a sondji .iva'inai ko'a sonci je djica. Since tanru modification
is often restrictive, this relation can also be denoted by {poi} .i co'e
le sondji .iva'inai co'e le djica poi sonci. *Usually* the place structure
will be that of the last gismu. Places of the other gismu can be incorporated
at will, but preferably after those of the last gismu.
eg. xaupre: le prenu noi xamgu. cambarda: carmi je barda (but see below).
badzda: big house: le zdani poi barda

{be}: ko'a sondji .iva'inai ko'a djica be lo sonci. The place of the
modiicatum (rightmost gismu, herein cmugi'u - le gismu poi jicmu [le tanru])
given by the modificant (other gismu - herein gafygi'u) may be omitted in
the place structure, which will usually be that of the cmugi'u, possibly with
the places of the gafygi'u appended. The place of the cmugi'u described by
the gafygi'u will usually be the 2nd, but the 3rd is feasible. Obviously
the 1st is not.
For example, in omitting the gafygi'u place in zdazba, we are left with
mi zdazba lo mudri .ita'unai mi zbasu lo zdani lo mudri. In retaining the
place, we'd have mi zdazba lemi zdani lo mudri .ita'unai mi zbasu be lo
zdani fe lemi zdani lo mudri .iva'inai mi zbasu lo zdani kujo'u lemi
zdani lo mudri .iva'inai mi zbasu lemi zdani no'u lo zdani lo mudri.
Obviously, this information is redundant, and {zbasu} is adequate as distinct
from {zdazba} in the latter sentence. But these decisions must be made
pragmatically.
eg. lo cipyzda cu zdani loi cipni .i lo pregri cu girzu loi prenu .i lo
xlictu cu ctuca loi nixli .i ko'a xlictu lenu karce litru - a Girls' school
teacher. i ko'a ctuca lei nixli pe leva ckule lenu karce litru

{belenu}. Properly a special case of {be}-lujvo, this is the most productive
pattern. Its use is already widespread with {rinka}. "I" cause that the
cloth be dry of milk. itu'a mi rinka lenu le bukpu cu sudga loi ladru .ita'u
tu'a mi sudri'a le bukpu le ladru "I" dry the cloth of milk. The gafygi'u
is the selbri of a {nu} clause which is an argument of the cmugi'u; the
arguments of this selbri replace the clause in the list of lujvo sumti.
Later arguments of the cmugi'u stay in place: [the following assumes an
unclefted place structure for simlu: event x1 seems to be true to x2 under
conditions x3] It seems to me that lojbab is identical to LeChevalier.
i lenu la lojbab. cu mintu la lecevali,er. cu simlu mi .ita'u la lojbab
cu mi'umlu la lecevalier. mi (This lujvo, incidentally, has been proposed
to take over the current [1990] place structure of simlu). The {nu}
clause can be the x2 of the cmugi'u (sudri'a), the x1 (mi'umlu), or the x3:
I used the rings to climb the mountain .i mi pilno lei djine lenu [mi] cpare
le cmana .ita'u mi parpi'o lei jdine le cmana. As the last lujvo shows,
repeated (replicated) sumti can be omitted from the place structure; for cases
other than rinka, this is in fact the norm. Thus under this interpretation,
sondji becomes djica be lenu sonci .iki'anai da djica lenu da sonci: a
would-be soldier. Examples of such lujvo construction abound.

{fu'i}. Dump the arguments of the ga'irgi'u after those of the cmugi'u. Useful
when none of the above analyses seem to work, but can lead to excessively long
and counterintuitive place structures. eg jdaselsku: le selsku cu jdaselsku
le cusku le te cusku le ve cusku le lijda le se lijda. Note that the place
structure given for this word in JL7 is (at least by these rules) erroneous:
the x2 of jdaselsku should be the x2 of selsku, which is {le cusku}, and not,
as in JL7, {le te cusku (to no'u la jegvon. toi)}. The structure given in
JL7 violates one of the two presupposed bases of these guidelines: that the
places of the lujvo be a subset of the combined places of the component
gismu (gi'urpa'u), and that the order of sumti in the gi'urpa'u not be
altered in the lujvo (as in JL7, where x1 x2 x3 is turned into x1 x3 (x2?).
It is interesting to note that Jim Carter proposed a similar inversion in
{batykla}. I disagree.

Obviously much caution must be exercised in applying these guidelines.
Omission of sumti in the lujvo which results occurs freely when these are
redundant - but this is a matter of pragmatics and semantics, not syntax
(which these guidelines, being transformational, can be said to be).
Additionally, these guidelines do not carry the official sanction of the
LGG, and have not hitherto become widely known.


Specific problems.

* The fact that there are four basic structures, subdividing into at least
a dozen instantiations, means that, even with the application of pragmatics,
and possibly future gismu classifications (see below), a combinatorial
explosion of interpretations results for lujvo with more than two
components. The fact that scoping cmavo (ke, ke'e, bo, je) will usually
be omitted in frequent such lujvo, for Zipfean reasons, will further
complicate matters.

* That these rules are primarily a syntactic, rather than semantic device,
and thus do not render obsolete the lexicographer's work, is shown by these
two points:

a) Often in lujvo construction, the cmugi'u will be the modificatum
semantically, but not most conveniently syntactically. Thus the afore-
mentioned mi'umlu will often be seen as mlumi'u, which maps the semantics
more nicely ("seemingly-same"), but which has no transformational inter-
pretation by the above guidelines which is as convenient as that for
mi'umlu. This is yet another demonstration of the fact that that which
is transformed from (the "deep structure") is not necessarily an
accurate representation of mind processes. It may become convenient in
the future to incorporate in such guidelines a transformation inverting
the lujvo tanru in such cases, but this depends greatly on evolution.
Analogous gismu to {simlu} in this respect are, I suggest, mutce, carmi
(cambarda (= badycai: carmi be lenu barda) - but note Helsem's use of
-cai final), mabla, simxu, cumki, suksa etc.

b) LeChevalier complained of the ambiguity of zasyspo, proposing the
alternative deep structures "destroy with temporary effect" {le za'i
da spofu ja'e lenu ba'o se daspo cu zasni} and "temporarily perform
acts of destruction" {lezu'o da ca'o daspo cu zasni}. These guidelines
are powerless to choose between {za'i} and {zu'o}. All they can do is
suggest a place structure, and they cannot quite do that, because
as can be seen from the deep structures, the "syntactic" lujvo is spozasni
(cf. mi'umlu for place structure). This does not mean that zasyspo is in
any way to be condemned; it is, after all, much more natural - in that it
is conceptually simpler. It does mean that caution is to be exercised.

(It is interesting to ask whether, as a result of the publication of this
essay, more "syntactic" lujvo will become more common. An informal
analogy from Esperanto's history suggests that it will, but also that
entrenched "irregularities" in the scheme (like "duon-" ({xab-}) in Esp,
{mal-} in Lojban) will not be displaced.)

(What I intend as the "syntactic deep structure" of an expression in
Lojban, empirically, is the most concise single-jufra statement of a concept
in the language, such that it is devoid of tanru, ellipses, and (at least
for this purpose) conjunction (rather than subordination) of clauses. A
transformational approach based on this will probably be the basis of
Lojban-language grammatology, and in fact is already current: see the
recent Cowan-Fine exchange on the elliptic places of a jufra containing a
logical connective).

* Before picking from between the four options too casually, users must
beware that there is a possibility (however incongruous with current LLG
policy) that in the future an aposteriori analysis of lujvo will be
developed based on the classification of gismu- namely, that certain
gismu, when used as cmugi'u (or gafygi'u) are primarily associated with
one of the three main types of lujvo place structure. (This seems to be
already true of rinka: I know of no use of {-ri'a} which analyses as
rinka je broda, or rinka befi lo broda). Such a classification is already
being performed (without LLG sanction) by Jim Carter, who first formulated
the aforementioned guidelines in his Loglan variant guaspi.

The above makes me personally question forms such as {cevrirni} (JL7); I
suspect that {rirni} will be mostly used in {be} rather than {je} lujvo
(eg. sperirni - parent in law - rirni be le speni; cf. Theotokos - cevma'a:
the formal Greek appelation of the Virgin Mary). However, givenhow complex
and exception-ridden such aposteriori rules are likely to be, and that they
will bw based on the natural usage which also give rise to a form like
{cevrirni}, this warning is not to be taken as binding.


CONCLUSION: One of the hitherto unstated base hypotheses of the language,
one in my view much more important that Sapir-Whorf, is that all concepts
expressable in human language can be expressed in predicate form, and more-
over that these predicates are the result of some combination of the
language's gismu sumti, cmavo sumti and sumti tcita. It is as unprovable
and as challenging as anything Whorfian. To put it in terms more familiar
to you, it is the thesis that all tanru are expandable. What tanru are
expanded into is what I have termed the syntactic deep structure - Basic
Lojban, if you will. To put the thesis one these terms: that Basic Lojban is
as expressive as any human language.

As presented here, these guidelines are an approach to this problem. They
waddle and stumble, but they are extremely productive and valuable,
and deserve the attention of the Lojban-speaking public.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick Nicholas, Melbourne Uni, Australia.  nsn@{munagin.ee|mullauna.cs}.mu.oz.au
"Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this nation's
number one killer"      - Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie
_______________________________________________________________________________