request for a new gismu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodic_memory

[la gleki]

1. "i remember kissing her"

2. "i remember that Lincoln was once a president of the US".

quote from the wp

Semantic and episodic memory together make up the category of declarative memory, which is one of the two major divisions in memory. The counterpart to declarative, or explicit memory, is procedural memory, or implicit memory.

pe'i

1. is  episodic memory

2. is semantic memory.

In IRC it was suggested that we need a new gismu for that.

after that 

<gleki> i just suddenly realised the importance of this concept. but several seconds later i lost this feeling because i had no words in my language to retain it in my memory.

Anyway if others agree i'll start the process of searching for etymology. it'll be much harder than with the case of "qua/in the capacity of", though.

Probably, no source glosswords for starting gismu/zi'evla creation algorithm will be found at all.

[v4hn]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:55:01PM -0800, la gleki wrote:
> 1. "i remember kissing her"

.i mi morji lodu'u pu ca'o cinba ko'a

> 2. "i remember that Lincoln was once a president of the US".

.i mi morji lodu'u la .linken. puzu co'i merko jatna


Which concept are you missing?
I don't get at all, what you're talking about.
At least, you could try to construct lojban examples of usage
for your proposal..


v4hn

[la gleki]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 1:44:19 PM UTC+4, v4hn wrote:

On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:55:01PM -0800, la gleki wrote:
> 1. "i remember kissing her"

.i mi morji lodu'u pu ca'o cinba ko'a

Yes, I wasn't that clear. 

<latro'a> it's a deficit I've noticed recently: fact memory and experiential memory really have almost nothing to do with one another

<latro'a> x1 remembers experience x2 (nu); x1 lifri x2 is implied

<latro'a> remembering experiences is really more rather than less fundamental than remembering facts

However, let me explain myself.

First example implies {ba'anai}. The second one implies {ka'u}.

Consider one more example.

2. I remember kissing her.

3. I remember that many boys kiss girls.

The third example has nothing to do with experiential memory. It's just something that we read from books, know our parents, friends etc. It's something like cultural experience so {ti'e} and {ka'u} would fit here.

The next problem is that {ba'a} seems to mi several things.

ba'a - I expect

ba'acu'i - I experience

ba'anai - I remember

If we try to map this to gismu we will get

ba'a - sei mi kanpe

ba'acu'i - sei mi lifri

ba'anai - sei mi morji

{lifri} is really odd in this set of three.

However, experiential memory would fit together with {lifri} to forma new scale. It'd be tempting to add future memory to this new set meaning

"I have a presentiment/foreboding that ..."

The page http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Evidentials has very strange definitions of {ba'a}-set. I wish someone could make them more understandable by e.g. explaining them through bridi in deep gismu structure format.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:55 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway if others agree i'll start the process of searching for etymology.
> it'll be much harder than with the case of "qua/in the capacity of", though.
> Probably, no source glosswords for starting gismu/zi'evla creation algorithm
> will be found at all.

Bear in mind though that all predicates of cognition can have this
distinction, not just remembering:

She knows what it's like to be a mother.
She knows what a mother is.

She realized she was pregnant.
He realized she was pregnant.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Ian Johnson]

The first one is "I remember that I kissed her"; you're remembering it as a fact, not necessarily something that you can go back and re-experience. You could have been blacked out and told after the fact and still remember the fact without remembering the experience. This is part of why I think this distinction is important.

[Sebastian Fröjd]

Why not just construct lujvos from broda morji and define the new lujvos to get this exact distinction?

2013/1/7 Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com>

--
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.

[Jacob Errington]

The problem is that basing these lujvo on {morji} is compositionally
wrong on a semantic level. The semanics of lujvo should be
compositional as much as is possible. However, if we were to redefine
morji, which is likely never going to happen, into something like "x1
has memory of / remembers x2 (su'u)" then you can probably derive both
current-morji and mojrli'i from that. The fact that the redefinition
isn't going to happen is what motivates the creation of a new gismu.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[MorphemeAddict]

The semantics of lujvo don't have to be compositional at all; it's just nice when they are. No need for a new gismu here. 

stevo

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, January 07, 2013 10:44:19 v4hn wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:55:01PM -0800, la gleki wrote:
> > 1. "i remember kissing her"
>
> .i mi morji lodu'u pu ca'o cinba ko'a

This one is "mi morji lo li'i". No need for a new gismu; just change the
abstractor.

Pierre
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.

[Ian Johnson]

This issue is controversial in general; generally most people are not in favor of letting lujvo completely go wild into cimjvo territory, but also find that completely compositionality results in lujvo being useless. The actual position on that scale varies from Lojbanist to Lojbanist; tsani and I are toward the jvajvo end of the spectrum for the most part. 

That said, in this particular case using {lifmo'i} or similar is suboptimal precisely because it has a compositional meaning that is actually useful, having to do with remembering facts about an experience as opposed to remembering the experience per se.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Ian Johnson]

This triggers a variety of issues pertaining to "type safety", which primarily come up when you access the place from outside, i.e. with {lo se morji}; if {lo se morji} can be whatever type, then it can require a frustrating amount of additional specification to clarify what is meant when accessing it this way. (Type safety, like the jvojva, is somewhat controversial, but at least on IRC we've been finding it more and more important over the course of the last year or so of usage.) It also breaks the pattern of {morji} fitting in with the rest of the {djuno} family.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[Ian Johnson]

s/completely/requiring complete/

[la gleki]

tsani and latro'a, do you have any more points or you say that there should be some basic gismu so that all those cases can be derived from it?

And why not {morji lo li'i}?

[Craig Daniel]

Isn't this just the distinction between remembering a nu and
remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something?

- mi'e .kreig.daniyl.

[v4hn]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:
> Isn't this just the distinction between remembering a nu and
> remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something?

More between {morji lo du'u} and {morji lo li'i}
as was pointed out already.

However, at the moment {morji} is restricted to {du'u}
(see definition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed
to use {morji} with {nu}/{li'i}.

The question remains, whether remembering (possibly non-experienced/
learnt) facts is the same concept as recalling experiences.
If it is not, it might not make sense to use {morji} with something
else than {du'u} and there is the need for a new gismu.


v4hn

[Craig Daniel]

It would hardly be the only mildly polysemous gismu. "balji" means
both the bulb of a plant, and anything bulbous-shaped; "basna" appears
from its definition to refer both to intonations of speech and actions
which call particular attention to something; "batci" refers both to
the act of taking something into your mouth and to squeezing something
between any two other things; "bilga" refers both to duties you have
made a commitment to undertake and those forced on you by others;
"bongu" refers to both bone and ivory, which are quite different from
the calcium found in milk (which is also bongu); "boxna" is slightly
bizarre in that it includes both radio waves and ordinary ocean waves
but apparently not rogue waves (which are aperiodic); freezing rain is
not solid when it falls from the sky, but it and all solid forms of
precipitation are grouped together as "bratu" (though snow also gets
its own gismu), and that's just the b gismu. None of these have
definitions that encompass concepts which aren't closely related
(though the designated "metaphor" uses often strain that particular
claim), but "this covers two similar-but-distinguishable concepts" is
not sufficient to require distinct gismu.

But yes, the fact that the definition of "morji" requires a du'u in x2
is worth patching.

- mi'e .kreig.

[selpa'i]

la .van. cu cusku di'e

> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:
>> Isn't this just the distinction between remembering a nu and
>> remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something?
>
> More between {morji lo du'u} and {morji lo li'i}
> as was pointed out already.
>
> However, at the moment {morji} is restricted to {du'u}
> (see definition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed
> to use {morji} with {nu}/{li'i}.

Without adding any new gismu, there is also the possibility of:

mi morji lo du'u ma kau li'i se tarbi
I remember what it was like to be pregnant.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[Ian Johnson]

Not the same thing, though, as we've been saying repeatedly; remembering facts about an experience and the experience itself are different concepts.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Turniansky]

  'Course, I don't know why no one has mentioned the obvious-to-me solution.  Unlike the se morji, the _te_morji is not strongly-cased to du'u.  There is nothing wrong with saying "mi morji [zi'o?] fi lo li'i  se tarbi"?

                             --gejyspa

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Ian Johnson]

This has already been mentioned, and the answer is the same: you should be able to say "I remember something about someone's experience of being pregnant" (for example, that she got morning sickness) and "I remember the experience of being pregnant [which I experienced myself]". Another way of looking at this is that the relationship between x2 and x3, x1 aside, is fundamental to djuno/morji/most other gismu that involve du'u, which makes it so the zi'o deletion doesn't even entirely make sense.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Michael Turniansky]

  I haven't seen anywhere on this thread (but maybe in a split-off thread that I haven't read, or stuff in the #irc that has the li'i in the x3.  But as for there being a fundamental relationship between in the x2 and x3 in djuno/morji/et al, I disagree.  In fact, if you view the entire corpus, I will boldly suggest that the incidence in which one or both of these are left blank for those set of bridi far outweighs the incidence of them both being explicitly defined.  Yes, I did it myself just recently in another thread (" iku'i gy te krici lo nu cevni ku lo selfu tu'u"), but usually we say things like "mi morji fi la marias" and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.  We  don't have to mention specific du'u associated with Maria, or indeed the mentioning of them might serve to render those not mentioned as somehow being inferior.  We can zi'o the x2 if it's holistic x3 we wish to talk about, not the specific body of facts associated with it.  And in this case, we are remembering an experience.  I haven't a problem with that.

               --gejyspa

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

I have not been following this thread. I think that the problem may be
excessively literally reading some aspects of the gismu list while
ignoring others.

Ian Johnson wrote:
> This has already been mentioned, and the answer is the same: you should
> be able to say "I remember something about someone's experience of being
> pregnant" (for example, that she got morning sickness) and "I remember
> the experience of being pregnant [which I experienced myself]". Another
> way of looking at this is that the relationship between x2 and x3, x1
> aside, is fundamental to djuno/morji/most other gismu that involve du'u,
> which makes it so the zi'o deletion doesn't even entirely make sense.
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturn...@gmail.com <mailto:mturn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 'Course, I don't know why no one has mentioned the obvious-to-me
> solution. Unlike the se morji, the _te_morji is not strongly-cased
> to du'u. There is nothing wrong with saying "mi morji [zi'o?] fi lo
> li'i se tarbi"?
>
> --gejyspa
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com
> <mailto:blindb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Not the same thing, though, as we've been saying repeatedly;
> remembering facts about an experience and the experience itself
> are different concepts.
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o

Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems
presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to
different memories.

More importantly, morji was not created assuming these as different
concepts.

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> la .van. cu cusku di'e
>
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel
> wrote:
>
> Isn't this just the distinction between remembering
> a nu and
> remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something?
>
>
> More between {morji lo du'u} and {morji lo li'i}
> as was pointed out already.
>
> However, at the moment {morji} is restricted to {du'u}
> (see definition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed
> to use {morji} with {nu}/{li'i}.

morji is NOT restricted to du'u. The parenthetical use in the gismu
list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY
restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban has
not been formally defined).

It is an indication that, at the time the definition was written, it was
believed that the place would most commonly be filled by an abstraction
of that type, as opposed to a non-abstraction. These parenthetical
invocations of abstraction were added to the place structures as a
warning against sumti-raising, which was the then-major topic in
semantics of the time. I went through all of the place structures
trying to word them to get people to avoid raising a sumti from an
implied abstraction and using it in place of the abstraction.

A different abstraction is certainly permissible, and indeed the
definition says "remembers/recalls/recollects facts/memory x2" A du'u
is obviously what one remembers when one remembers a "fact", but is not
how one would normally express a "memory" which might indeed be a li'i.
I/we simply had not considered the full possibilities of how one
describes a memory, and thus did not specify how to do so in x2. We had
used du'u, and most important, wanted to stress that the place was
normally going to be an abstraction.

But I'm not sure that it can even be said that x2 of morji will always
be an abstraction. I might recall a quote from a book or a play, but
what I am recalling is probably not the "fact" that the quoted text was
in the book; I am recalling the quote itself, triggered by current
context that is telling me that the quote is relevant to that context.

One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a quote is
a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode. If so, one might
make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the presumably different memory
types of facts, quotes, and episodes, and define the place structure of
the lujvo specific to your more restricted meaning.

(I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning
lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo rules,
because we didn't really build the tools for semantic-rules-based
lujvo-making into the language - the concept of having rules to
determine place structures was an afterthought regularization devised by
Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis of patterns of how people
actually were making lujvo).

lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

[la gleki]

Wikipedia mentions episodic and semantic memory (see the title of this thread).

 

More importantly, morji was not created assuming these as different
concepts.

>         On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de
>         <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>             la .van. cu cusku di'e
>
>                 On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:17AM -0500, Craig Daniel
>                 wrote:
>
>                     Isn't this just the distinction between remembering
>                     a nu and
>                     remembering a du'u? Or am I missing something?
>
>
>                 More between {morji lo du'u} and {morji lo li'i}
>                 as was pointed out already.
>
>                 However, at the moment {morji} is restricted to {du'u}
>                 (see definition), so normally you shouldn't be allowed
>                 to use {morji} with {nu}/{li'i}.

morji is NOT restricted to du'u.  The parenthetical use in the gismu
list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY
restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban has
not been formally defined).

ju'o no language can have it's semantics fully described. 

[John E Clifford]

Y' think?

---

From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <loj...@lojban.org>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] request for a new gismu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodic_memory

-- 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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Ian Johnson]

 Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to different memories.

As gleki has pointed out, there is significant evidence that the two actually are different. Also, although it is a small sample, at the time of coming up with this idea several of us (tsani, gleki, and I, possibly others) all realized that our ways of interacting with these types of memories were significantly different, and that this seemed to be responsible for several experiences with memory. For example, I remarked that I remember certain concepts in mathematics in a way more similar to how I remember experiences than to how I remember other facts, and that these memories are inevitably more permanent and vivid than their counterparts. gleki remarked that he had a brief epiphany of the importance of this concept before quickly losing it to the lack of a word for it in his native language.

morji is NOT restricted to du'u.  The parenthetical use in the gismu list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban has not been formally defined).

You may say that, but this type analysis is part of the way that the language, as I've seen it in the last few years, has evolved. Evolved restriction is not new to natlangs, why should it be new to conlangs?

One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a quote is a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode.  If so, one might make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the presumably different memory types of facts, quotes, and episodes, and define the place structure of the lujvo specific to your more restricted meaning.

(I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo rules, because we didn't really build the tools for semantic-rules-based lujvo-making into the language - the concept of having rules to determine place structures was an afterthought regularization devised by Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis of patterns of how people actually were making lujvo).

It's been stated already that the problem with going about this way is that the lujvo that you would want to use for this concept have useful jvajvo meanings which are distinct from this concept. "Remembering something about an experience" and "remembering an experience" are both useful ideas which should have separate terms.

[Robert LeChevalier]

Ian Johnson wrote:
> Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems
> presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed
> to different memories.
>
> As gleki has pointed out, there is significant evidence that the two
> actually are different. Also, although it is a small sample, at the time
> of coming up with this idea several of us (tsani, gleki, and I, possibly
> others) all realized that our ways of interacting with these types of
> memories were significantly different, and that this seemed to be
> responsible for several experiences with memory. For example, I remarked
> that I remember certain concepts in mathematics in a way more similar to
> how I remember experiences than to how I remember other facts, and that
> these memories are inevitably more permanent and vivid than their
> counterparts. gleki remarked that he had a brief epiphany of the
> importance of this concept before quickly losing it to the lack of a
> word for it in his native language.

That the experience of having these kinds of memories is different does
not mean that the concept is fundamentally different from any other kind
of memory. The place structure is essentially the same; you just fill
in a different kind of value.

> morji is NOT restricted to du'u. The parenthetical use in the gismu
> list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY
> restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban
> has not been formally defined).
>
> You may say that,

Because it is true.

> but this type analysis is part of the way that the
> language, as I've seen it in the last few years, has evolved.

There have been people who have tried to analyze semantic issues. But
their analysis is not part of the language definition. It is at best
descriptive and not prescriptive.

This is by design intent, and will persist until/unless some authority
like byfy changes it. And it isn't on byfy's agenda to even consider
such issues yet, and probably for a long time to come. A lot of more
important stuff comes first and hasn't gotten done.

> Evolved restriction is not new to natlangs, why should it be new to conlangs?

I have no idea whether it is found in other conlangs. It is not part of
Lojban.

> One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a
> quote is a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode. If
> so, one might make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the
> presumably different memory types of facts, quotes, and episodes,
> and define the place structure of the lujvo specific to your more
> restricted meaning.
>
> (I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning
> lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo
> rules, because we didn't really build the tools for
> semantic-rules-based lujvo-making into the language - the concept of
> having rules to determine place structures was an afterthought
> regularization devised by Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis
> of patterns of how people actually were making lujvo).
>
> It's been stated already that the problem with going about this way is
> that the lujvo that you would want to use for this concept have useful
> jvajvo meanings which are distinct from this concept.

jvajvo is also not a mandatory rule. And that a jvajvo exists does not
necessarily give that meaning priority over a new and more useful meaning.

In general, shorter words are the ones that are more frequent, by Zipf's
laws. Almost no lujvo exist that are so frequent as to demand a short
form. There simply isn't a large enough corpus to measure such usage.

But in any case, there are an essentially infinite number of possible lujvo.

And there are exactly 1357 gismu, with no more expected to be added for
the indefinite future, because there is no defined procedure to even
consider same, and the list is formally baselined. We would use
experimental Type IV rafsi-able fu'ivla before coining new gismu.

> "Remembering
> something about an experience" and "remembering an experience" are both
> useful ideas which should have separate terms.

To me
The first is x1 morji ledu'u [] li'i []
The second is x1 morji li'i [] zo'e

And if I really needed a lujvo for the latter, I would coin frimo'i.
And if some other meaning already exists for that lujvo, I would change
the lesser used one by adding some other term.

But in any event, I don't sweat whether there is another word in
jbovlaste (and in fact I never use it). I would coin the word I wanted,
and iff it caused confusion with some other meaning, only then would I
actually debate the question. It hasn't yet happened (though I admit I
am not a heavy user of the language, and don't interact much online with
others in Lojban).

lojbab

[Jonathan Jones]

I count 1342. Where are these other 15?
 

"Remembering
something about an experience" and "remembering an experience" are both
useful ideas which should have separate terms.

To me
The first is x1 morji ledu'u [] li'i []
The second is x1 morji li'i [] zo'e

And if I really needed a lujvo for the latter, I would coin frimo'i. And if some other meaning already exists for that lujvo, I would change the lesser used one by adding some other term.

But in any event, I don't sweat whether there is another word in jbovlaste (and in fact I never use it).  I would coin the word I wanted, and iff it caused confusion with some other meaning, only then would I actually debate the question.  It hasn't yet happened (though I admit I am not a heavy user of the language, and don't interact much online with others in Lojban).

lojbab

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[la gleki]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:34:07 AM UTC+4, Latro wrote:

 Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to different memories.

As gleki has pointed out, there is significant evidence that the two actually are different. Also, although it is a small sample, at the time of coming up with this idea several of us (tsani, gleki, and I, possibly others) all realized that our ways of interacting with these types of memories were significantly different, and that this seemed to be responsible for several experiences with memory. For example, I remarked that I remember certain concepts in mathematics in a way more similar to how I remember experiences than to how I remember other facts, and that these memories are inevitably more permanent and vivid than their counterparts. gleki remarked that he had a brief epiphany of the importance of this concept before quickly losing it to the lack of a word for it in his native language.

Thanks for dragging me into your team of insurgents zo'o. Honestly, it's not so easy for me to catch the meaning of this new gismu, BUT (!) periodically I start feeling the meaning of this new word. Probably starting using this word can help me and others fully understand the difference between morji and this new one. And therefore get rid of polysemy of morji in our minds. Or may be prove this concept wrong.

However, going back to lojbab's words of li'i/du'u. It's the first time I see a gismu that allows several distinct NU for one place. Do we have other brivla that can accept several NU ?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:34:07 AM UTC+4, Latro wrote:

 Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to different memories.

As gleki has pointed out, there is significant evidence that the two actually are different. Also, although it is a small sample, at the time of coming up with this idea several of us (tsani, gleki, and I, possibly others) all realized that our ways of interacting with these types of memories were significantly different, and that this seemed to be responsible for several experiences with memory. For example, I remarked that I remember certain concepts in mathematics in a way more similar to how I remember experiences than to how I remember other facts, and that these memories are inevitably more permanent and vivid than their counterparts. gleki remarked that he had a brief epiphany of the importance of this concept before quickly losing it to the lack of a word for it in his native language.

Thanks for dragging me into your team of insurgents zo'o. Honestly, it's not so easy for me to catch the meaning of this new gismu, BUT (!) periodically I start feeling the meaning of this new word. Probably starting using this word can help me and others fully understand the difference between morji and this new one. And therefore get rid of polysemy of morji in our minds. Or may be prove this concept wrong.

However, going back to lojbab's words of li'i/du'u. It's the first time I see a gismu that allows several distinct NU for one place. Do we have other brivla that can accept several NU ?

Yes. All of them, in every place, although the type of abstraction- or even using an abstraction at all- may not make sense, like with {lo nu sutra cu klama lo si'o plise}. The listed NU in certain gismu definitions aren't the /only/ allowable ones, they're just that ones that .lojbab. saw were being /used/ in those places when he was going through the definitions.
 

morji is NOT restricted to du'u.  The parenthetical use in the gismu list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban has not been formally defined).

You may say that, but this type analysis is part of the way that the language, as I've seen it in the last few years, has evolved. Evolved restriction is not new to natlangs, why should it be new to conlangs?

One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a quote is a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode.  If so, one might make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the presumably different memory types of facts, quotes, and episodes, and define the place structure of the lujvo specific to your more restricted meaning.

(I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo rules, because we didn't really build the tools for semantic-rules-based lujvo-making into the language - the concept of having rules to determine place structures was an afterthought regularization devised by Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis of patterns of how people actually were making lujvo).

It's been stated already that the problem with going about this way is that the lujvo that you would want to use for this concept have useful jvajvo meanings which are distinct from this concept. "Remembering something about an experience" and "remembering an experience" are both useful ideas which should have separate terms.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/VNEdH7MtQcYJ.

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.

--

[la gleki]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:42:36 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:34:07 AM UTC+4, Latro wrote:

 Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts" as opposed to different memories.

As gleki has pointed out, there is significant evidence that the two actually are different. Also, although it is a small sample, at the time of coming up with this idea several of us (tsani, gleki, and I, possibly others) all realized that our ways of interacting with these types of memories were significantly different, and that this seemed to be responsible for several experiences with memory. For example, I remarked that I remember certain concepts in mathematics in a way more similar to how I remember experiences than to how I remember other facts, and that these memories are inevitably more permanent and vivid than their counterparts. gleki remarked that he had a brief epiphany of the importance of this concept before quickly losing it to the lack of a word for it in his native language.

Thanks for dragging me into your team of insurgents zo'o. Honestly, it's not so easy for me to catch the meaning of this new gismu, BUT (!) periodically I start feeling the meaning of this new word. Probably starting using this word can help me and others fully understand the difference between morji and this new one. And therefore get rid of polysemy of morji in our minds. Or may be prove this concept wrong.

However, going back to lojbab's words of li'i/du'u. It's the first time I see a gismu that allows several distinct NU for one place. Do we have other brivla that can accept several NU ?

Yes. All of them, in every place, although the type of abstraction- or even using an abstraction at all- may not make sense, like with {lo nu sutra cu klama lo si'o plise}. The listed NU in certain gismu definitions aren't the /only/ allowable ones, they're just that ones that .lojbab. saw were being /used/ in those places when he was going through the definitions.

Oh sorry for not being clear enough. It's the first time I see a gismu in which changing type of NU clearly changes the meaning without not losing sense.

Could you please provide other useful examples of different meaningful translations of brivla that differ in type of NU?

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Robert LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org
> <mailto:loj...@lojban.org>> wrote:

>
> And there are exactly 1357 gismu, with no more expected to be added
> for the indefinite future, because there is no defined procedure to
> even consider same, and the list is formally baselined. We would
> use experimental Type IV rafsi-able fu'ivla before coining new gismu.
>
>

> I count 1342. Where are these other 15?\

Probably in my quasi-senile memory.

You are correct that the current list is 1342. At one point before the
current baseline it was 1357. But alas, I have scrubbed my computer of
obsolete lists to the point where finding the old lists is a non-trivial
effort. Since the last change before the baseline added 20 words (look
for JL15 on the website to see the list), I'm not entirely sure how the
number got to its current state. I don't think we deleted that many.
I'd probably have to dig through the paper archives to find some of the
prior lists.

In any event 1357 is the number stuck in my mind from the earliest days,
and I notice that I've (erroneously) used it a couple other times since
the list was baselined.

http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00107.html
is one reference showing the old list size.

I note in passing regarding recent historical discussion that JL16 has a
discussion of the kinds of changes made in the place structures in the
last review before the final baseline.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could you please provide other useful examples of different meaningful translations of brivla that differ in type of NU?

.i lo mi gerku cu vajni mi

.i lonu bamfa'u la.perl.xarber. cu vajni lonu lo mergu'e cu cmizu'e lo remoi baljamna

.i lo jbobau cu bangu mi losi'o mupli

.i lo glibau cu bangu do lodu'u preti

[Jonathan Jones]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

Jonathan Jones wrote:

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Robert LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org

<mailto:loj...@lojban.org>> wrote:

    And there are exactly 1357 gismu, with no more expected to be added
    for the indefinite future, because there is no defined procedure to
    even consider same, and the list is formally baselined.  We would
    use experimental Type IV rafsi-able fu'ivla before coining new gismu.

I count 1342. Where are these other 15?\

Probably in my quasi-senile memory.

You are correct that the current list is 1342.  At one point before the current baseline it was 1357.  But alas, I have scrubbed my computer of obsolete lists to the point where finding the old lists is a non-trivial effort.  Since the last change before the baseline added 20 words (look for JL15 on the website to see the list), I'm not entirely sure how the number got to its current state.  I don't think we deleted that many. I'd probably have to dig through the paper archives to find some of the prior lists.

In any event 1357 is the number stuck in my mind from the earliest days, and I notice that I've (erroneously) used it a couple other times since the list was baselined.

http://wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00107.html
is one reference showing the old list size.

Wow, I haven't seen a bangpath in forever. :)
 

I note in passing regarding recent historical discussion that JL16 has a discussion of the kinds of changes made in the place structures in the last review before the final baseline.

lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier    loj...@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[la gleki]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:40:03 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Could you please provide other useful examples of different meaningful translations of brivla that differ in type of NU?

.i lo mi gerku cu vajni mi

.i lonu bamfa'u la.perl.xarber. cu vajni lonu lo mergu'e cu cmizu'e lo remoi baljamna

.i lo jbobau cu bangu mi losi'o mupli

.i lo glibau cu bangu do lodu'u preti

Oh sorry once again. I still wasn't clear enough. Of course si'o/du'u are somewhat similar (I thought everybody has read http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ka%2C+du%27u%2C+si%27o%2C+ce%27u%2C+zo%27e and la tsani's paper on abstractions based on it).

So I have no questions regarding your examples.

So my question is "Is it possible to change {nu} to {du'u/si'o} or {ka} in one of abstraction places of a brivla so that it'll lead to meaningful change in meaning?