BPFK gismu Section: Parenthetical Remarks in Brivla Definitions: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 17:06, 26 February 2018

Work in progress

This is going to look horribly messy while I hunt down references and stuff to put in. Please feel free to not use the Discuss tab, with one exception: links to prior discussion on this topic is desperately needed, since at this point I'm mostly working from fuzzy notions in my head on "what someone, somewhere, might have said".

The problem

The gismu list contains portions that are enclosed in parentheses or square brackets. It is a contentious issue whether these parenthetical remarks have any normative bearing on the meaning of the gismu, and if they have, what kind of interpretation they should have.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that an effort is underway to define as many lujvo as possible with definitions in the style of the gismu list. These definitions must now be called into question, to the extent that the authors' understanding of the meaning of parenthetical remarks differ from that of the gismu list, and from each others'.

A sub-case: subcategorisation of abstraction types

It is very common in gismu definitions to mention kinds of abstractions in parentheses. Examples of this are:

ruble: x1 is weak/feeble/frail in property/quality/aspect x2 (ka) by standard x3

sarcu: x1 (abstract) is necessary/required for continuing state/process x2 under conditions x3

sruma: x1 assumes/supposes that x2 (du'u) is true about subject x3; [epistemology]

Some of these may be due to attempts to impart a sense of intensionality before an article type that could accommodate it (see BPFK Section: gadri) came about (Alexander 1994). Indeed the CLL explicitly says that "ka" properties are "what logicians call "intensions"." (Cowan 1997)

Relation to design criteria

It is sometimes said (e.g. in Cowan 1997) that gismu are intended to "blanket semantic space". This has led to the emergence of the view that the meaning of gismu should be as wide as possible. It is easy to narrow down a sense by constructing lujvo or fu'ivla, but it is much more difficult to combine gismu to construct a sense that is broader. Hence, if there are two competing interpretive conventions for gismu definitions, one which consistently results in narrow senses, and another which consistently results in comparatively broad senses, according to this view one should prefer the broadness-maximising convention.

On the other hand, Cowan (1991) also notes that gismu should not be seen as semantic primitives.

Evidence from usage

Recommendation

Implicit Sumti Raising

There have be proposals that using a non-abstraction in an abstraction place should simply be assumed to have an automatic tu'a. The problem with this is that it destroys a very subtle distinction and usage like the following:

ko senva lo melbi/ko senva tu'a lo melbi
Have beautiful dreams./Dream of beautiful things.

mi djica lo banli
I want something great to happen.

la .alis. troci lo bebna
Alice tries something stupid.

The idea here is that, since abstractors could conceivably fill the x1 place of any of a myriad of brivla, then any of those brivla could be used in place of that abstraction. Implicit sumti-raising destroys this feature of lojban.

References

Iain Alexander, 1994. Posting on Lojban mailing list. Subject: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati. Search for "any-old-<x>" on [1].

John Cowan, 1991. Loglan and Lojban: A Linguist's Questions And An Amateur's Answers. [2]

John Cowan, 1997. The Complete Lojban Language. Logical Language Group

Lojban Wiki, 2003. factivity of djuno.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A sumti to be attached to another sumti with a [[jbocre: sumti tcita|sumti tcita]] (BAI) must be attached using ''be'' or ''pe''. Otherwise the phrase modifies the entire ''bridi''.
+== Work in progress ==
-----
+This is going to look horribly messy while I hunt down references and stuff to put in. Please feel free to not use the Discuss tab, with one exception: <u>links to prior discussion on this topic is desperately needed</u>, since at this point I'm mostly working from fuzzy notions in my head on "what someone, somewhere, might have said".
-''Do you have some examples of what you're referring to? I'm fairly sure the pe can '''only''' attach a sumti to a sumti...'' -[Jay Kominek ay]]
+== The problem ==
-No, he means without the "pe", BAI + sumti applies to the whole bridi. -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
+The gismu list contains portions that are enclosed in parentheses or square brackets. It is a contentious issue whether these parenthetical remarks have any normative bearing on the meaning of the gismu, and if they have, what kind of interpretation they should have.
-''Since BAI opens a new place, be is preferred to pe, unless I am completely misunderstanding you, which is very possible without any examples.''
+This problem is exacerbated by the fact that an effort is underway to define as many lujvo as possible with definitions in the style of the gismu list. These definitions must now be called into question, to the extent that the authors' understanding of the meaning of parenthetical remarks differ from that of the gismu list, and from each others'.
- ''mi klama le zdani be fi'e do''
+=== A sub-case: subcategorisation of abstraction types ===
- I go to the place created by you
+It is very common in gismu definitions to mention kinds of abstractions in parentheses. Examples of this are:
- ''mi klama le zdani pe fi'e do''
+;ruble:x1 is weak/feeble/frail in property/quality/aspect x2 (ka) by standard x3
- I go to the place associated in some way with...something created by you?
+;sarcu:x1 (abstract) is necessary/required for continuing state/process x2 under conditions x3
-''--xod''
+;sruma:x1 assumes/supposes that x2 (du'u) is true about subject x3; <nowiki>[epistemology]</nowiki>
-''mi klama le zdani pe fi'e do'' is defined to mean ''mi klama le zdani poi do finti [[jbocre: ke'a|ke'a]]''. See [[the Book|The Book]], chapter 9.10 -- Adam
+Some of these may be due to attempts to impart a sense of intensionality before an article type that could accommodate it (see [[BPFK Section: gadri]]) came about (Alexander 1994). Indeed the CLL explicitly says that "ka" properties are "what logicians call "intensions"." (Cowan 1997)
-* Sorry, Adam, but 9.10 does not say that. It only implies ''mi klama le zdani poi do finti'' --- the ''ke'a'' is not explicitly defined, and in fact in some instances, such a definition has been rebutted. See [http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9105/msg00053.html] -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
+See also: [[BPFK gismu Section: Problems With ka]].
-** It says: ''"Example 10.5 and Example 10.6 have the full semantic content of Example 10.1 and Example 10.2 respectively."'' (I accept that the ''ke'a'' might not necessarily be in the x2, though it's quite likely.) I suppose "defined to mean" wasn't quite the best way to put it, but there isn't really another way to understand it.
-***Sure; I'm just issuing the caution that such a transformation does not hold in the general case for all [[jbocre: sumti tcita|sumti tcita]], as polemicised by [[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]]. In the particular case you mention, of course it holds. (Furthermore, it's a transformation I  also believe holds in general, per the [[Gismu Deep Structure]] Hypothesis. But that hypothesis is only that; it's not baselined, or even mentioned in the Book.) -- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
+== Relation to design criteria ==
-.1)   la .apasionatas. poi se cusku la .artr. rubnstain.
+It is sometimes said (e.g. in Cowan 1997) that gismu are intended to "blanket semantic space". This has led to the emergence of the view that the meaning of gismu should be as wide as possible. It is easy to narrow down a sense by constructing lujvo or fu'ivla, but it is much more difficult to combine gismu to construct a sense that is broader. Hence, if there are two competing interpretive conventions for gismu definitions, one which consistently results in narrow senses, and another which consistently results in comparatively broad senses, according to this view one should prefer the broadness-maximising convention.
- cu se nelci mi
+On the other hand, Cowan (1991) also notes that gismu should not be seen as semantic primitives.
- The Appassionata which is-expressed-by Artur Rubenstein
+== Evidence from usage ==
- is-liked-by me.
+== Recommendation ==
-.2)   la .apasionatas. noi se finti la betovn.
+===  Implicit Sumti Raising ===
- cu se nelci mi
+There have be proposals that using a non-abstraction in an abstraction place should simply be assumed to have an automatic tu'a. The problem with this is that it destroys a very subtle distinction and usage like the following:
- The Appassionata, which is-created-by Beethoven,
+{{mu|ko senva lo melbi/ko senva tu'a lo melbi| Have beautiful dreams./Dream of beautiful things.}}
- is-liked-by me.
+{{mu|mi djica lo banli|I want something great to happen.}}
-.5)   la .apasionatas pe cu'u la .artr. rubnstain.
+{{mu|la .alis. troci lo bebna|Alice tries something stupid.}}
- cu se nelci mi
+The idea here is that, since abstractors could conceivably fill the x1 place of any of a myriad of brivla, then any of those brivla could be used in place of that abstraction. Implicit sumti-raising destroys this feature of lojban.
- The Appassionata expressed-by Artur Rubenstein
+== References ==
- is-liked-by me.
+Iain Alexander, 1994. Posting on Lojban mailing list. Subject: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati. Search for "any-old-<x>" on [http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9409/msg00111.html].
-.6)   la .apasionatas ne fi'e la betovn.
+John Cowan, 1991. Loglan and Lojban: A Linguist's Questions And An Amateur's Answers. [http://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/reply.txt]
- cu se nelci mi
+John Cowan, 1997. The Complete Lojban Language. Logical Language Group
- The Appassionata, invented-by Beethoven,
+Lojban Wiki, 2003. [[factivity of djuno|factivity of djuno]].
- is-liked-by me.
+[[Category:lo me BPFK nunsnu pe lo gismu]]
-''pe BAI looks very clumsy to me. --xod''
-Yes, it's an attempt to imitate natlangs' adpositions, and doesn't add anything new. The best that can be said in its defense is that its slightly shorter, and doesn't introduce a subordinate bridi. -- Adam
-wow. thats disgusting and confusing as all hell. does anyone actually use that regularly? --[Jay Kominek ay]]
-People, people, why aren't you reading the [[latest version of the]] [[lessons]]? :-)
-*''ne fi'e'' and ''pe fi'e'' are explicitly advocated for [[jbocre: cmene|cmene]]; the standard example from the [[Refgramm]] (p. 203) is (10.5), (10.6), above.
-*Somehow I, and maybe others, got it into our heads that [[sumti tcita]] are usually attached to other [[sumti]] using ''pe'', not ''be'', because the [[jbocre: cmene|cmene]] example stuck, and we thought all [[sumti]] must behave like this. (Or, more precisely, we thought everybody else thought like this, so we'd better do the same. :-) )
-*I said as much in the lessons.
-*[[Robin Lee Powell]], like any sane [[New Growth Lojbanist]], said "Huh?"
-*I double checked, and the Refgramm only talked about doing this for [[jbocre: cmene|cmene]].
-*You ''can'' do this for other sumti. (It is neither ungrammatical nor nonsensical. It does, of course, mark you of being of a certain generation...) But for other sumti, you can also do this with ''be'', which of course makes much more sense, since it makes it completely parallel to default internal sumti.
-*The Lessons are now changed. Whatever bad habits we [['Tweeners]] (or I 'Tweener) may have gotten into, ''be'' is canonical for [[sumti tcita]] as well as normal [[sumti]] attached to other sumti. (Proving old habits die hard, I posted a translation to the List an hour before this, using ''pebau''.)
-*Finally, I '''don't''' think you can use ''be'' instead of ''pe'' for ''semau'' and ''seme'a'' (also p. 203). But this, the original 'modal relative phrase' construction (see the original Textbook draft, in which it used to have a cmavo all of its own), has not prospered in Lojban. ''' See [[Frank likes Betty more than Mary]].'''
-So much for history. Can I ask though, are people objecting to ''pe'' as opposed to ''be'', or to internal [[sumti tcita]] in general?
--- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]
-internal [[sumti tcita]] are my bestest friends... but only when used with ''be''. i'm ill at the thought of connecting them to a sumti with ''pe''. the fact that the grammar ''even allows'' anything except a [[sumti]] to follow ''pe'' boggles my mind. if i ever had a reason to attach a [[sumti tcita]] to a cmene, i wouldn't. i know where to find NOI cmavo, and i know how to use them. :) --[[Jay Kominek ay]]