Re: CONLANG: LISP representation of "deep structure"

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

On the CONLANG list <conlang@diku.dk>, I posted the following
response to TImothy Miller, who was attempting to create a
LISP-like representation of the (semantic) structure of language.

I pointed out that most of the examples he posted went word-for-word
into Lojban.  Here's my posting:

Timothy Miller scripsit:

> Here are some incomplete thoughts that express structure:

Except for being verb-first, this *is* Lojban.  And Lojban
can tag the subject with "fa" when it appears after the
verb.  Here are Lojban translations using that style: with
few exceptions, they mirror your structures exactly.
 
> "to run slowly"
> (slow run)

masno bajra

> "red apple"
> (red apple)

xunre plise
 
> "appleish red thing"
> (apple red)

plise xunre
 
> "to be able to run"
> (can run)

Lojban reverses this: bajra kakne.  In the sentence
"John is able to run", we are expressing that John
has a running type of ability, not an ability type
of running (whatever that might be).
 
> And here are some sentences of various types:
> 
> "I run slowly"
> ((slow run) i)

masno bajra fa mi
slow run (subject) I 

> "I can see you"
> ((can see) i you)

viska kakne fa mi do
see is-able (subj) I you

> "Jane sees John"
> (see jane john)

viska fa la djein. la djan.
sees (subj.) (name) Jane (name) John 

> "I gave him an apple"
> ((past give) i apple he)
>    OR
> (past (give i apple he))
> [which one?]

pu dunda fa mi lo plise ko'a
(past) give (subj) I an/some apple(s) him

meaning, of course, that I gave apples to him,
not that I gave him to apples.  If the number is
really important, change "lo" to "pa" to get
"one apple".
 
> "Leave!"
> (imp (leave you))
>   OR
> (leave ko) [a la lojban]
> [which one?]

cliva fa ko
leave (subj) (imperative-you)
 
> "Red apples are nice"
> (nice (red (plural apple)))

xamgu fa za'u xunre plise
good (subj) more-than-(1) red apples
 
> "Can you see me?"
> (ques (see you i))

xu viska fa do mi
(True?) see (subj) you me

But this means "Do you see me?"  The
"possibility" element requires

xu viska kakne fa do mi
(True) see is-able (subj) you me
 
> "Where are we?"
> (((in _?_) exist) we)

Lojban has a verb for "is-at", so
zvati fa mi'o ma
is-at (subj) we (what?)

where "mi'o" specifically means
"you and I, but not others".
 
> "The cat runs up the tree"
> (((up tree) run) (the cat))
> [how would you put this into past tense?]

Lojban treats the destination of running
as a place, so

bajra klama fa le mlatu le trice
runningly goes (subj) the cat the tree
 
> "Don't eat"
> (imp ((not eat) you))
> [imperative for whole sentence, just verb, or use 'ko' from Lojban?]

na citka fa ko
(It is false) eat (subj) (you-imperative)
 
> "I don't eat"
> ((not eat) i)

na citka fa mi
(It is false) eat (subj) I

But this means only that on some unspecified occasion I didn't
eat, whereas "I don't do X" in English usually means that I never
do X, or that I habitually don't do X:

noroi citka fa mi
no-times eat (subj) I
I never eat

na ta'e citka fa mi
(false) habitually eat (subj) I
It is false that I habitually eat
 
> "Eat cookies after dinner"
> (imp (((after dinner) eat) you cookies))
>   OR
> (((after dinner) (imp eat)) you cookies)
>   OR
> (((after dinner) eat) ko cookies)
> [which one?]

ba le vacysai
        citka fa ko loi cmalu titnanba
in-future-of the dinner (lit. evening-meal)
        eat (subj) (you-imp) part-of-mass small cakes
                        (lit. sweet-bread)

> "Are you hungry?"
> (ques (hungry you))

xu xagji fa do
(True?) hunger (subj) you
 
> "If I eat, then I'm full, otherwise I'm hungry"
> (if (eat i) (full i) (hungry i))
> [note: "full" would actually be replaced by a proper indication of the
> MEANING of full in context, ie. have had enough eat, or something]

ganai citka fa mi gi cidja selmansi
        .ije ganai na citka gi xagji

if eat (subj) I then food-type-of satisfied
and if not eat then hungry

where the subject is given only once and is understood the other
three times.  Other translations are possible.

> "I'm hungry"
> (hungry i)

xagji fa do
hunger (subj) I
 
> "I am (being) seen"  [someone sees me]
> (see X i)

viska fa da mi
see (subj) something me
 
> "What sees me"
> (see ? i)

viska fa ma mi
see (subj) (what?) me
 
> "Are you hungry?"
> (ques (hungry you))
>    OR

xu xagji fa do
(True?) hunger (subj) you
 
> "Who is hungry?"
> (fill-in (hungry ?))
>   OR

xagji fa ma
hunger (subj) (what?)

> (hungry ?)
> [If a computer were to parse this, would it be good to indicate that the
> sentence is a fill-in-the-blank question before hand, in addition to the
> blank?]

xu xagji
(True?) hunger
Is the obvious person hungry?

After all, there is really no need to say "Are you hungry?" except
that English verbs need subjects.  Lojban sentences don't, so
"Hungry?" is plenty.  Whose hunger would you be asking about, normally,
except the listener's?  (Of course, there are contexts like
"Is Fido hungry?" as well.)
 
> lojban: "ko (speak) ko"
> (speak ko ko)
> [ie. speak to yourself, and allow yourself to speak to you]

tavla fa ko ko
speak (subj) you-imp you-imp

> "Where do we eat?"
> (((in ?) eat) we)

citka vi ma fa mi'a/ma'a
eat near (what?) (subj) we

"mi'a" excludes the listener, and means "I and others",
whereas "ma'a" means "you and I and others".

> "it is imperative that john eat a sandwich"
> (imp (eat joe sandwich))
>    [which is similar in meaning to]

Lojban doesn't have a direct representation of these
third-person imperatives.  You can say "must eat"
or the like.

> "make joe eat a sandwich"
> (cause ko (eat joe sandwitch))

gasnu fa ko
        le nu citka fa la djos. lo snuji
agent (subj) you-imp
        (the event-of eats (subj) (name) Joe a/some sandwich(es))
 
> (if (? dog) (...))
> [I wrote this down when discussing with a friend, but I don't remember
> what it means]

This too can be said in Lojban:

ganai gerku fa ma gi co'e
if dog (subj) (what?) then the-obvious-claim
What is it that if it is a dog, then the obvious sentence is true?

> "A dog runs now"
> ((present run) dog)

ca bajra fa lo gerku
(present) runs (subj) a/some dog(s)
 
> "I run in the park"
> (((in (the park)) run) i)

bajra vi le panka fa mi
run at-location the park (subj) I

> "The unhappy me eats chocolate" or "I eat chocolate when I'm not happy"
> (eat ((not happy) i) chocolate)

citka fa mi poi to'e gleki ku'o loi cakla
eat (subj) I such-that( opposite-of happy ) part-of-mass-of chocolate

Note the use of "to'e" (other than) rather than "na" (false) here,
as well as the explicit "poi ... ku'o" relative clause.

> (run (happy i))
> [what does this mean?]

bajra fa mi poi gleki
run (subj) I such-that happy

"The happy me runs."

> "the smiling dog runs"
> (run (smile dog))
> [ie. smile participle.  When a sentence is used as a noun, in english
> surface structure, the verb will become a participle, I think]

bajra fa le cisma gerku
runs (subj) the smile-type-of dog

or

bajra fa le gerku poi cisma
runs (subj) the dog such-that runs
 
> "I'm faster than you"
> ((comp fast) i you)

sutra zmadu fa mi do
fast exceeds (subj) I you
I exceed you in fast-ness.
 
> "I am big"
> (big i)

barda fa mi
big (subj) I
 
> "I am John"
> (equal i john)

du fa mi la djan.
= (subj) I (name) John.

But this means that I am identical with some John or other
than you know.  It might be appropriate in response to
"Which of you is John?"  More normal versions of the English
sentence are:

cmene fa zo djan. mi 
is-name-of (subj) the-word "John" me
"John" is the name of me.

mi'e djan.
I-am John.

where "mi'e is a self-vocative particle.

> Let's see what we can do with this.  :)

Read
ftp://ftp.access.digex.net/pub/access/lojbab/draft-reference-grammar
to see what we have already done with it.  :-)

If you get tired of saying "fa" in every sentence, move the subject
before the verb and insert "cu" between them.  You can leave off the
"cu"
if the subject is a pronoun, and in some other cases too.

When it comes to Lisp-style languages that are (as And says)
"in-your-facely compositional", Lojban has the area sewed up, methinks.
-- 
John Cowan						cowan@ccil.org
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban