Difference between revisions of "suggestions for CLL, second edition"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
For errata relating to the current edition of the CLL, see [[CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata|CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata]].  For errata related to the 4th Baseline Grammar, see [[CLL PEG Errata|CLL PEG Errata]].
  
I'm insane for doing this.
+
== General considerations ==
  
My goals are maximum expressive power across a wide range of axes, and minimum change of CLL Lojban. This document is horrifically incomplete; at this point, I just want to see if it has enough '''potential''' support to justify writing up a better version.
+
===  Terminology ===
 +
*Lojban terms are used for most parts of speech, except for quantifiers and descriptors. Needlessly inconsistent?
 +
**In particular (this list is not exhaustive),
 +
***quantifier->something with {snicne}? (though personally I (zort) disagree with the veljvo of {snicne})
 +
***quantified variable->something with {snicne}?
 +
***descriptor->gadri
 +
***description->gadri sumti (I haven't actually seen this used)
 +
***attitudinal->cnima'o
 +
****Only correct for emotion-words, not all attitudinals; this is due to its etymology. [[User:Sisima70|Sisima70]] ([[User talk:Sisima70|talk]]) 17:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 +
***terminator->fa'orma'o
 +
***modal->sumti tcita
 +
***vocative->jikma'o? rinsyma'o?
 +
***evidential->veljivma'o?
 +
**Using Lojban terms is probably confusing for beginners. They're appropriate for a reference manual but not for a (comprehensive) tutorial, and it is clear that CLL is trying to be both. Not trying to claim that it necessarily shouldn't be both, just clarifying the issue.
 +
*A lot of this terminology is used without being defined.  We should formally define the terminology that is import to understanding the grammar and syntax of Lojban, preferably in a sidebar outside of the main text.
 +
* The general idea of terminators and particularly elision is never discussed as such in the book.  Chapter 5.5 is the first mention of a elidable terminators, with the first use of the phrase elidable terminator occurring in Chapter 5.7.  I think the concept of terminators, cmavo opening grammatical constructs, and elision should be dealt with in it's own section.  At the very least, the construct should be defined.[http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/browse_frm/thread/51e61df572e4ccf0]
  
The basic idea is to identify all of the axes (plural of axis) along which we want to be able to express things in a gadri-like fashion, assign each a UI, and specify a transformation that occurs when said UI is used after a gadri. Since we have the power to define UI usage, this seems perfectly acceptable to me, and many of the UI are under-utilized and under-defined.
+
=== Teaching Material and Examples ===
  
Note that I am '''''not''''' attached to this particular selection of UI cmavo; we can find other ones, or make some up, as necessary.
+
*There should be more illustration and diagrams. For instance, with termsets, show with lines and/or colour coding how two sentences are equivalent. See [http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ロジバン the Japanese Wikipedia] for some other examples.
 +
* Minimum 2 sentence explanation for every cmavo (excluding ones that are part of a pattern like {fo'i}, of course). Chapter 13 is particularly guilty of the length of the explanation of a cmavo seemingly being inversely proportional to the number of cmavo explained in the section; some just get two gloss words worth of explanation, and it's rather opaque.
  
If LX was a '''completely''' generic article (i.e. xorlo), then in this system lo broda == LX sa'e cu'i je'u .o'e nai da'i nai broda, and le broda == LX sa'e je'u cu'i .o'e nai da'i cu'i broda
+
===  Pedagogy ===
  
* Personal Specificity -- sa'e
+
* Chapter 4 needs to go somewhere else, ideally near the end.  It's crazy to give all that crap to newbies.
** The specific thing(s) I have in mind (i.e. "le").
+
**.djeims.:
 +
***It is a specification, not a tutorial. It makes sense to start with orthography, follow with morphology, and then the continue with the rest of the language.
 +
* Maybe the fact that denpabu are optional in writing should be reinforced, since people seem to forget that. Right now it's only mentioned once, early in the book, in a little paragraph in chapter 3. It would not be out of place in chapters 4 and 19.
  
*** le broda ~= ro lo sa'e broda == ro da poi mi pensi ke'a zi'e poi ke'a broda
+
==  Topic Suggestions ==
** A specific thing(s), but I have no particular one in mind (i.e. "su'o da").
 
  
*** lo broda ~= le sa'e cu'i broda == su'o da poi ke'a broda
+
* Each of these topics is important to the CLL, but not strictly contained to a single chapter or Section.  Ideally, each of these topics would be reviewed for consistency throughout the text.
** The idea of a thing / Mr. Thing / intensionality.  Note that this is '''not''' si'o; that relates to a whole relationship, not merely the x1 thing.
 
  
*** lo sa'e nai broda ~= le sa'e nai broda == zo'e noi ke'a broda (which, obviously, I stole from xorlo). Note that in this one case, default quantifiers are dropped.
+
=== brivla/cmevla merger ===
 +
* Even though the CLL probably shouldn't encode the "brivla-cmevla merge" proposal yet (if ever), I think it should have {cu} in {la .djan. cu klama}. This is because BCM or not, this elision of {cu} is confusing to beginners. Once they learn that brivla can be names too, they are liable to go e.g. {la zipcpi klama}; makes {la} look like it has "two grammars".
 +
** "la" HAS two grammars [[User:Sisima70|Sisima70]] ([[User talk:Sisima70|talk]]) 17:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  
* Existence -- da'i
+
===  Lujvo ===
** su'o da, or something like it: insisting that the thing really does exist.
 
  
*** lo broda == le da'i nai broda
+
====  Chapter 4 ====
** Imaginary, or otherwise fundamentally non-existant (with respect to the current semantic space).
 
  
*** lo da'i broda == le da'i broda
+
===== Section 5 =====
** Agnosticism about existence is da'i cu'i, and is the default for le. Please note that this is arguable from CLL, but I think it's the best choice.
 
  
** Used to exist (which I think is just "pu", but this needs to be addressed so that we can so "a doctor" and make it clear that agnosticism about the tense means that all the doctors having been killed isn't much relevant).
+
It seems like the writers of the CLL originally did really just think of lujvo as being shortened forms of tanru who have been given an explicit meaning instead of the vague meaning that tanru have.
  
* Distributivity -- .o'e, or mass cmavo.
+
=== Cultural Neutrality ===
** (See http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html for an explication. This relates to what Lojban has historically called "masses".)
 
  
** The short version: Non-distributive just means that the elements are only considered as a whole in this predication.  Distributive is the default; each individual is considered by themselves.  "The students surround the building" cannot be represented in standard predicate logic without non-distributives / plurals / masses, because it implies that '''each''' student surrounds the building.
+
Chapter 3, Section 12 is titled "Oddball Orthographies." "Oddball" is value judgment, rather than a factual statement.  In the spirit of cultural neutrality we should find statements with implied value judgments and translate them to factual statements. In this case, "Alternate Orthographies" is a much clearer statement about the contents of that section.
** Lojban has historically mixed up what I'm calling "Distributivity" and "Property Transference".  I'm not at all certain that seperating the two out is terribly useful, but I'm providing .o'e to allow it.
 
  
** It has been noted that .o'e, as a pure emotion cmavo, kind of sucks for this purpose, but I can't think of anything better. If people would prefer to go back to conflating the two issues, or grab an unassigned cmavo, that's fine.  Consider this the weakest part of the proposal.
+
* An obvious objection to this is that a neutral tone of writing is relatively boring. "Oddball" is more fun than "Alternate". By the way, do you advocate changing the chapter title "Relative Clauses, Which Make sumti Even More Complicated"?
** Distributive
 
  
*** LE .o'e broda == LEi broda == su'o da poi gunma zi'e broda
+
== Typographical ==
** Non-distributive
 
  
*** LEi .o'e nai broda == LE broda
+
*It would be better if numbered were not only chapters and sections, but also sentences like in the Bible.
 +
**.aionys.:
 +
***Exactly what would be the benefit of adding "verse" numbers? We can easily cite specific sentences without the need to do this. For example, citing from the online refgram: 9.3.7.2 (Chapter 9, section 3, paragraph 7, sentence 2): "Therefore, it is perfectly all right to scramble...." Or for examples: 9.3-3.3 (Chapter 9, section 3, example 3.3): "''3.3)  klama fa mi fi la .atlantas.'' ...."
 +
*The brush-stroke placeholders for logical connectives should be written in "blackboard bold" instead, to make it look more form
 +
**mi'e.paldanyli.:
 +
***I remember this section being confusing to me because of the brushstroke letters. Suddenly the book became much more formal (in the mathematical sense) and I didn't know what that signified. Writing them as of "-a -e -i -o" might be better, since the hyphen indicates they are not themselves words, without introducing a strange new typographical convention. The book already uses hyphens to show that rafsi are not words, so this would be consistent. Or since "a e i o" actually are words,  perhaps they could be used directly.
 +
*The header or footer of each page should include the chapter number along with the title, to make fully referencing examples easier.  (i.e., when you see example 1.7, you can look at that page and know that it is example 5.1.7, without having to scroll back to the table of contents to find the name of the chapter.)
  
* Property Transference
+
== Chapter Suggestions ==
** Handled solely by choice of gadri.
 
  
** Set-wise; result has only properties such as cardinality, number, and so on
+
=== Chapter 3 ===
** Mass-wise; result has all properites borne by any of the entities contained
 
  
* Indentification
+
==== Section 6 ====
** Handled by choice of LA vs LE cmavo, not UI.
 
  
** By Name
+
*Section 6, restriction no. 2 already forbids 8 of the 12 consonant pairs that are forbidden by restriction no. 3; perhaps it's better to just explicitly forbid the pairs "cs", "jz", "sc" and "zj" like in the last restriction.
** By Descriptive selbri
+
**.skaryzgik.:
 +
***I kind of like that the explanation for those pairs being forbidden is given, even if it includes things already forbidden. I would like it slightly better if the word "sibilant" were used. Perhaps for consistency the reason could be given for the last restriction instead of listing seemingly-random pairs.
 +
****.aionys.:
 +
*****Agreed
  
* Accuracy / Veridicality -- je'u
+
==== Section 9 ====
** Contained identifier is intended to objectively describe the thing; IOW, the description is not specific to the speaker at all.
 
  
*** lo broda ~= le je'u broda
+
#A bit after example 9.5, the explanation of how to stress words is ambiguous. A possible incorrect interpretation:
** Contained identifier is innaccurate / untruthful / nonce in some fashion known to the speaker; IOW, the description is specific to the speaker.
+
<code>
 +
set stressed_syllable = penultimate_syllable;
  
*** lo je'u nai broda ~= le je'u nai broda
+
while (stressed_syllable contains "l|m|n|r|y"
** Cointained identifier may or may not be objectively accurate.
 
  
*** lo je'u cu'i broda ~= le broda
+
&amp;&amp; stressed_syllable != first_syllable) {
 +
 
 +
stressed_syllable = syllable_before(stressed_syllable);
 +
</code>
 +
None of the examples demonstrate that only syllables containing "l|m|n|r" as syllables on their own are to be skipped, nor that skipped syllables are to be ignored ''before'' you start counting as opposed to skipped while you're counting. The following examples would make it clearer: {djanatyn} is pronounced {DJAnatyn} (not {djaNAtyn}), and {patrica} is pronounced {paTRIca} (not {PAtrica}).
 +
 
 +
==== Section 12 ====
 +
 
 +
*The tengwar table should use actual tengwar in addition to their names, since we now have Unicode (CSUR) and good fonts.
 +
*The Cyrillic letters given map to 'abcdefgijklmnoprstuvxyz'? That doesn't seem totally obvious. mi'e.djeims.
 +
**I agree [[User:Sisima70|Sisima70]] ([[User talk:Sisima70|talk]]) 17:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 4 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 7 ====
 +
 
 +
*In the procedure for making a non-Lojban word into a valid Stage 3 fu'ivla, double consonants are to be eliminated before the sounds are to be converted to their closest Lojban equivalents, but it is possible that consecutive consonants have different sounds (like in 'eccentric'). So these actions should swap places. The same goes for section 8, in the procedure for Lojbanizing a name.
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 5 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 14 ====
 +
 
 +
*The three letter language abbreviations were probably used to save space, but now that we have actual tables we can safely write the full names of the languages.
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 10 ===
 +
 
 +
*It would be nice if there was a template for compound tenses around the end of the chapter, like the template for compound cnima'o in chapter 13 section 8.
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 11 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 12 ====
 +
 
 +
*The phrase {le ka la frank ciska} is glossed as "The quality-of Frank's writing". {ka} glosses to the word "property", and the Lojban doesn't talk at all about quality (as in jezyprane), so I believe the word "quality" was accidentally put there, having bled into the interlinear gloss from the author's intended natural English translation. That said, I (Zort) believe the gloss should be "The property-that Frank writes".
 +
*''That'' said, I (still Zort) have a humble suggestion for a demonstration of this section's grammatical feature, a cynical little observation, that has occured in my Lojban speech "in the wild", and perhaps therefore proves at least some usefulness of this grammatical feature: {le'e prenu cu djica lo mu'e jenai za'i gunka}.
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 13 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 15 ====
 +
 
 +
*Couldn't the {se'u}s be elided since their sumti are before their selbri?
 +
**in most cases '''se'u''' is followed by a COI/UI word so better not remove it [[User:Gleki|mu&#39;o mi&#39;e La Gleki]] ([[User talk:Gleki|talk]]) 09:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 16 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 9 ====
 +
 
 +
*It says "for no x" (noda) is the same as "it is false for some x" (naku su'oda). I (mi'e zort) interpret "it is false for some x" as "there is an x such that it is false" (su'oda naku), not "it is false that for some x it is true" (naku su'oda), so it should be changed to "it is false '''that''' for some x".
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 18 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 19 ====
 +
 
 +
This section is very similar to Chapter 19 Section 7.  I believe the information in these sections should be consolidated into a single section.
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 19 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 7 ====
 +
 
 +
This section is very similar to Chapter 18 Section 19.  I believe the information in these sections should be consolidated into a single section.
 +
 
 +
=== Chapter 21 ===
 +
 
 +
==== Section 2 ====
 +
 
 +
Rule 6 in the introductory remarks on EBNF syntax should clarify that "A &amp; B" means "A | B | A B", but does not permit "B A".  Further, explain that "A &amp; B &amp; C &amp; D" permits one or more of A, B, C, and/or D, but ONLY in that order.

Latest revision as of 09:55, 29 June 2019

For errata relating to the current edition of the CLL, see CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata. For errata related to the 4th Baseline Grammar, see CLL PEG Errata.

General considerations

Terminology

  • Lojban terms are used for most parts of speech, except for quantifiers and descriptors. Needlessly inconsistent?
    • In particular (this list is not exhaustive),
      • quantifier->something with {snicne}? (though personally I (zort) disagree with the veljvo of {snicne})
      • quantified variable->something with {snicne}?
      • descriptor->gadri
      • description->gadri sumti (I haven't actually seen this used)
      • attitudinal->cnima'o
        • Only correct for emotion-words, not all attitudinals; this is due to its etymology. Sisima70 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
      • terminator->fa'orma'o
      • modal->sumti tcita
      • vocative->jikma'o? rinsyma'o?
      • evidential->veljivma'o?
    • Using Lojban terms is probably confusing for beginners. They're appropriate for a reference manual but not for a (comprehensive) tutorial, and it is clear that CLL is trying to be both. Not trying to claim that it necessarily shouldn't be both, just clarifying the issue.
  • A lot of this terminology is used without being defined. We should formally define the terminology that is import to understanding the grammar and syntax of Lojban, preferably in a sidebar outside of the main text.
  • The general idea of terminators and particularly elision is never discussed as such in the book. Chapter 5.5 is the first mention of a elidable terminators, with the first use of the phrase elidable terminator occurring in Chapter 5.7. I think the concept of terminators, cmavo opening grammatical constructs, and elision should be dealt with in it's own section. At the very least, the construct should be defined.[1]

Teaching Material and Examples

  • There should be more illustration and diagrams. For instance, with termsets, show with lines and/or colour coding how two sentences are equivalent. See the Japanese Wikipedia for some other examples.
  • Minimum 2 sentence explanation for every cmavo (excluding ones that are part of a pattern like {fo'i}, of course). Chapter 13 is particularly guilty of the length of the explanation of a cmavo seemingly being inversely proportional to the number of cmavo explained in the section; some just get two gloss words worth of explanation, and it's rather opaque.

Pedagogy

  • Chapter 4 needs to go somewhere else, ideally near the end. It's crazy to give all that crap to newbies.
    • .djeims.:
      • It is a specification, not a tutorial. It makes sense to start with orthography, follow with morphology, and then the continue with the rest of the language.
  • Maybe the fact that denpabu are optional in writing should be reinforced, since people seem to forget that. Right now it's only mentioned once, early in the book, in a little paragraph in chapter 3. It would not be out of place in chapters 4 and 19.

Topic Suggestions

  • Each of these topics is important to the CLL, but not strictly contained to a single chapter or Section. Ideally, each of these topics would be reviewed for consistency throughout the text.

brivla/cmevla merger

  • Even though the CLL probably shouldn't encode the "brivla-cmevla merge" proposal yet (if ever), I think it should have {cu} in {la .djan. cu klama}. This is because BCM or not, this elision of {cu} is confusing to beginners. Once they learn that brivla can be names too, they are liable to go e.g. {la zipcpi klama}; makes {la} look like it has "two grammars".
    • "la" HAS two grammars Sisima70 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Lujvo

Chapter 4

Section 5

It seems like the writers of the CLL originally did really just think of lujvo as being shortened forms of tanru who have been given an explicit meaning instead of the vague meaning that tanru have.

Cultural Neutrality

Chapter 3, Section 12 is titled "Oddball Orthographies." "Oddball" is value judgment, rather than a factual statement. In the spirit of cultural neutrality we should find statements with implied value judgments and translate them to factual statements. In this case, "Alternate Orthographies" is a much clearer statement about the contents of that section.

  • An obvious objection to this is that a neutral tone of writing is relatively boring. "Oddball" is more fun than "Alternate". By the way, do you advocate changing the chapter title "Relative Clauses, Which Make sumti Even More Complicated"?

Typographical

  • It would be better if numbered were not only chapters and sections, but also sentences like in the Bible.
    • .aionys.:
      • Exactly what would be the benefit of adding "verse" numbers? We can easily cite specific sentences without the need to do this. For example, citing from the online refgram: 9.3.7.2 (Chapter 9, section 3, paragraph 7, sentence 2): "Therefore, it is perfectly all right to scramble...." Or for examples: 9.3-3.3 (Chapter 9, section 3, example 3.3): "3.3) klama fa mi fi la .atlantas. ...."
  • The brush-stroke placeholders for logical connectives should be written in "blackboard bold" instead, to make it look more form
    • mi'e.paldanyli.:
      • I remember this section being confusing to me because of the brushstroke letters. Suddenly the book became much more formal (in the mathematical sense) and I didn't know what that signified. Writing them as of "-a -e -i -o" might be better, since the hyphen indicates they are not themselves words, without introducing a strange new typographical convention. The book already uses hyphens to show that rafsi are not words, so this would be consistent. Or since "a e i o" actually are words, perhaps they could be used directly.
  • The header or footer of each page should include the chapter number along with the title, to make fully referencing examples easier. (i.e., when you see example 1.7, you can look at that page and know that it is example 5.1.7, without having to scroll back to the table of contents to find the name of the chapter.)

Chapter Suggestions

Chapter 3

Section 6

  • Section 6, restriction no. 2 already forbids 8 of the 12 consonant pairs that are forbidden by restriction no. 3; perhaps it's better to just explicitly forbid the pairs "cs", "jz", "sc" and "zj" like in the last restriction.
    • .skaryzgik.:
      • I kind of like that the explanation for those pairs being forbidden is given, even if it includes things already forbidden. I would like it slightly better if the word "sibilant" were used. Perhaps for consistency the reason could be given for the last restriction instead of listing seemingly-random pairs.
        • .aionys.:
          • Agreed

Section 9

  1. A bit after example 9.5, the explanation of how to stress words is ambiguous. A possible incorrect interpretation:

set stressed_syllable = penultimate_syllable;

while (stressed_syllable contains "l|m|n|r|y"

&& stressed_syllable != first_syllable) {

stressed_syllable = syllable_before(stressed_syllable); None of the examples demonstrate that only syllables containing "l|m|n|r" as syllables on their own are to be skipped, nor that skipped syllables are to be ignored before you start counting as opposed to skipped while you're counting. The following examples would make it clearer: {djanatyn} is pronounced {DJAnatyn} (not {djaNAtyn}), and {patrica} is pronounced {paTRIca} (not {PAtrica}).

Section 12

  • The tengwar table should use actual tengwar in addition to their names, since we now have Unicode (CSUR) and good fonts.
  • The Cyrillic letters given map to 'abcdefgijklmnoprstuvxyz'? That doesn't seem totally obvious. mi'e.djeims.

Chapter 4

Section 7

  • In the procedure for making a non-Lojban word into a valid Stage 3 fu'ivla, double consonants are to be eliminated before the sounds are to be converted to their closest Lojban equivalents, but it is possible that consecutive consonants have different sounds (like in 'eccentric'). So these actions should swap places. The same goes for section 8, in the procedure for Lojbanizing a name.

Chapter 5

Section 14

  • The three letter language abbreviations were probably used to save space, but now that we have actual tables we can safely write the full names of the languages.

Chapter 10

  • It would be nice if there was a template for compound tenses around the end of the chapter, like the template for compound cnima'o in chapter 13 section 8.

Chapter 11

Section 12

  • The phrase {le ka la frank ciska} is glossed as "The quality-of Frank's writing". {ka} glosses to the word "property", and the Lojban doesn't talk at all about quality (as in jezyprane), so I believe the word "quality" was accidentally put there, having bled into the interlinear gloss from the author's intended natural English translation. That said, I (Zort) believe the gloss should be "The property-that Frank writes".
  • That said, I (still Zort) have a humble suggestion for a demonstration of this section's grammatical feature, a cynical little observation, that has occured in my Lojban speech "in the wild", and perhaps therefore proves at least some usefulness of this grammatical feature: {le'e prenu cu djica lo mu'e jenai za'i gunka}.

Chapter 13

Section 15

  • Couldn't the {se'u}s be elided since their sumti are before their selbri?
    • in most cases se'u is followed by a COI/UI word so better not remove it mu'o mi'e La Gleki (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Chapter 16

Section 9

  • It says "for no x" (noda) is the same as "it is false for some x" (naku su'oda). I (mi'e zort) interpret "it is false for some x" as "there is an x such that it is false" (su'oda naku), not "it is false that for some x it is true" (naku su'oda), so it should be changed to "it is false that for some x".

Chapter 18

Section 19

This section is very similar to Chapter 19 Section 7. I believe the information in these sections should be consolidated into a single section.

Chapter 19

Section 7

This section is very similar to Chapter 18 Section 19. I believe the information in these sections should be consolidated into a single section.

Chapter 21

Section 2

Rule 6 in the introductory remarks on EBNF syntax should clarify that "A & B" means "A | B | A B", but does not permit "B A". Further, explain that "A & B & C & D" permits one or more of A, B, C, and/or D, but ONLY in that order.