x1 to the left
Luke Bergen
Michael Turniansky
about the existense of soemthing, or the state of things, and the
observative is a useful construct. So I can say "viska mi'o" without
having to say "da viska mi'o" Or "rokci" without having to say "lo
rokci cu farlu mi'o" Is it arbitrary? Sure, but arbitrary doesn't
equal bizzare. Back in the olden days of Loglan, something without
an argument to the left was considered to be a command, just like
English, (i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko
broda"). It's just a design choice.
--gejyspa
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
Jorge Llambías
<mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back in the olden days of Loglan, something without
> an argument to the left was considered to be a command, just like
> English, (i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko
> broda"). It's just a design choice.
Yes, I think that's the reason. Since commands were marked by the
absence of x1, for "dunda ta mi" to mean "give that to me" the
arguments to the right had to start from x2.
The other justification I heard is that you usually want ko'a in "lo
broda be ko'a", or in "da poi broda ko'a" to fall in the x2 place.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Jonathan Jones
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
Frank
(i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko
broda"). It's just a design choice.
--gejyspa
Craig Daniel
>
> The other justification I heard is that you usually want ko'a in "lo
> broda be ko'a", or in "da poi broda ko'a" to fall in the x2 place.
>
That's the reason I like, even if it's not the historically correct
one for how it got that way.
But I personally think of selbri-last as the "default" order (with
lots of variation possible, either to make for less tangled syntax or
for pragmatically marked reasons) precisely because it makes x1 feel
less privileged.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Frank <frankdm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 November 2010 13:59, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko
>> broda"). It's just a design choice.
>>
>> --gejyspa
>
> However, in lojban, does not the absence of an argument to a selbri simply
> mean that argument is unspecified? In such case, "prami mi" means "Someone
> unspecified Loves Me" and is not the command "Love Me". In order to make it
> a command, if I recall correctly, One is required to use "ko", so as to make
> the statement, "You (imperative), Love Me." Such an idiom ("absence equals
> unspecified") is seen in the former Google Wave lesson where the Student is
> instructed the phrase "zdani mi" means "something houses Me" or "I have a
> house" and is not told "You (imperative), house Me." Is there actually an
> updated version of lojban, this "modern lojban", I have missed? Or are You
> just saying, "If We were to start from scratch, We might make 'broda' equal
> 'ko broda'."?
> Just wanting to make sure I have read materials correctly.
> mi'e xuinkrbin.
Yup, you've got it right. Loglan did it differently, but Lojban works
exactly as you think.
- mi'e .kreig.daniyl.
Frank
Yup, you've got it right. Loglan did it differently, but Lojban works
exactly as you think.
- mi'e .kreig.daniyl.
Lindar
It's a feature, and a rather useful one. Very often the x1 is omitted
to make it a more observation-like phrasing. Speak Lojbanically and
you'll see why we have it set up that way. =P
Luke Bergen
Timo Paulssen
> On 12 November 2010 13:59, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> (i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko broda").
>> It's just a design choice.
>>
>> --gejyspa
>
>
> However, in lojban, does not the absence of an argument to a selbri
>
> mi'e xuinkrbin.
That's right. gejyspa just didn't want to use Loglan words, because many
people here probably don't know them. What he meant was: If Lojban now
was the way Loglan was back then, {broda} would equal what we now know
as {ko broda}.
mu'o mi'e timos
Ian Johnson
I will say, though, that VSO is a bit tempting; it takes the idea of selbri as predicates that take arguments and extends it to the actual way of speaking the language. The main issue that I would have is that we would be sacrificing the notion of a "bridi tail", which has some nice properties. One of them, albeit one that doesn't actually get used much (probably because most seljbobau are also selglibau) is the ability to say:
ko'a ko'e broda gi'e brode
A concrete example (this is used in L4B):
la nik. la kalifornias. klama gi'e stali
mu'o mi'e latros.
John E Clifford
From: Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 13, 2010 9:28:29 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: x1 to the left
Pierre Abbat
> If you're using place structure, you're inevitably going to "discriminate"
> against some word order that is standard in some natlang. After all, there
> are 6 different ones: SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS, OVS, OSV. Lojban without FA or SE
> is SVO.
Lojban can do SVO and SOV equally well. Unlike natlangs, however, it doesn't
have a small number of places for arguments that are usually assigned to
subject, direct object, and indirect object; rather, it has an indefinite
sequence of places. x3 of dunda corresponds to the indirect object, but there
is no way x3 of mlafi'e (the side that has two eyes) could be called an
indirect object.
Pierre
--
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.
Michael Turniansky
<timo...@perpetuum-immobile.de> wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 09:35 PM, Frank wrote:
>> On 12 November 2010 13:59, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> (i.e., in modern lojban "broda" would have equalled "ko broda").
>>> It's just a design choice.
>>>
>>> --gejyspa
>>
>>
>> However, in lojban, does not the absence of an argument to a selbri
>>
>> mi'e xuinkrbin.
>
> That's right. gejyspa just didn't want to use Loglan words, because many
> people here probably don't know them. What he meant was: If Lojban now
> was the way Loglan was back then, {broda} would equal what we now know
> as {ko broda}.
>
> mu'o mi'e timos
>
nu...)) On the other hand, timos, there are plenty of Loglan words
lojbanists know -- bisli, rismi, vamtu, blanu (although blanu had an
x2 place back in Loglandia (x1 is bluer than x2))
--gejyspa
Jorge Llambías
<mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, timos, there are plenty of Loglan words
> lojbanists know -- bisli, rismi, vamtu, blanu (although blanu had an
> x2 place back in Loglandia (x1 is bluer than x2))
And there are even some words they might think they recognize but are
false friends, like "cidja" (means "awake" in Loglan) or "barda"
(means "rewards" in Loglan).