Re: lujvo morphology

[Colin Fine <colin@KINDNESS.DEMON.CO.UK>]

vecu'u le notci po'u <845367916.20508.0@vms.dc.lsoft.com> la "R.M.
Uittenbogaard" <reneuit@SCI.KUN.NL> cu cusku di'e

>LLG> I understand.  However, throughout the history of the project, there has
>LLG> been a fear that excessively long lujvo would be so unaesthetically
>LLG> pleasing to people actually using the language (as opposed to those
 talking
>LLG> about using it) that some sort of haphazard abbreviation or shortening
>LLG> would take place if a planned approach were not allowed for.  ...
>LLG> Therefore, good design in to make sure that Zipf's Law is satisfied
>LLG> before we start, insofar as is possible.
>
>You have certainly got a good point there. I didn't think of that.
>It was a good idea to ensure a systematic way of handling this before
>an unsystematic shortening would be made up by Lojban-speakers. It is
>important that the language be used as precisely as possible.

Indeed, the unsystematic shortening which did occur in earlier versions
of Loglan was a problem and is the reason first for distinguishing the
morphology of lujvo from that of gismu, and second for allocating
specific rafsi to the gismu. [The first change goes back to just-pre-
Lojban Loglan, and is in TLI Loglan as well; I can't remember for sure
whether TLI also have a defined list of rafsi, but I think so. Of course
they don't use the words _gismu_, _rafsi_ etc, preferring to use English
terms for these]
>
>On the other hand, other aspects of Lojban will certainly be used
>differently by different speakers, which will have different opinions on
>how to express certain things, e.g. I have seen (and can think of) the
>following constructions:
>
>- sei la rik. cusku se'u mi cliva
>- la rik. cusku lu mi cliva li'u
>- la rik. lu mi cliva li'u
>- cu'u la rik. lu mi cliva li'u
>
>Aren't some of these expressions ungrammatical? Still, they are being used.

All are grammatical, but all have different structures, and so
technically different meanings, though pragmatically they may be partly
interchangeable.

Specifically
>- sei la rik. cusku se'u mi cliva
is the sentence 'mi cliva' (I am alive) with a parenthetical remark 'la
rik. cusku' (Rick expresses something). Only pragmatics will allow us to
conclude that 'mi cliva' is what Rick expresses - and note that even
then it does not say that he utters the words: he might be expressing it
by dancing, for example.
The truth value of the sentence depends only on whether 'I am alive',
though the referent of 'I' is not clearly identified.

>- la rik. cusku lu mi cliva li'u
This is logically the simplest of the four: 'Rick expresses [the words]
"mi cliva"'. Its truth depends on whether he does so, and not on whether
they are true. It is still not explicit that he utters the words
(perhaps he paints them), but it is explicit that it is the quoted jufra
that he expresses, not its meaning

>- la rik. lu mi cliva li'u
This is not a bridi (predication) but a sequence of sumti - 'Rick, "mi
cliva"'. This is grammatical, but its meaning as a whole is undefined. I
think the original intention of allowing such jufra was as answers to
questions like 'ma cusku ma' (Who expresses what?), but since it could
logically be an answer to a question such as 'ma patfu fi ma' (Who is
the father (of somebody) by which mother?) the relationship between the
sumti is not logically deducible. Again, in context it may be perfectly
clear pragmatically. I think some writers have used this construction
for this purpose; others have frowned at it.

>- cu'u la rik. lu mi cliva li'u
This is also a sumti sequence, where the first is tagged and therefore
has its role restricted, but _not_ in relation to the second. The
meaning is something like 'expressed by Rick, "mi cliva".
If this were an answer to 'cusku ma' ([somebody] Expressed what?) it
would be exactly appropriate. To 'ma cusku ma' (Who expressed what?) it
would be a logical non-sequitur, because the question was about the
first and second places of 'cusku' and the answer is about the second
place and a tagged ('expressed by') place: only the particular meaning
of 'cusku' and 'cu'u' allows us to identify the first and the jaicu'u
places.
You can see this more clearly by considering it as an answer to 'la
djan. cusku ma', where the first place is not questioned, and the answer
'cu'u la rik lu mi cliva li'u' appears to mean "As expressed by Rick,
[John said] 'mi cliva'"

>e'u doi lobypli ko na pilno lei nandu rafsi
>i ko pilno lei mutce sampu rafsi po'o

airu'e .i da noi rafsi zo'u mi facki ta'ima lejei da nandu
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 436109  e-mail:  colin@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|      "We're all in a box and the instructions for getting out       |
|             are on the outside" -K.B.Brown                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------