sumti-raising cmavo thingy
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Bruno Panasiewicz
Jul 12, 2016, 6:08:51 AM7/12/16
to mriste
Hi!
The other day, I was thinking, "wouldn't it be useful to have a sumti-raising infix cmavo?".
In other words, wouldn't it be useful to have a cmavo that goes between the raised sumti and the rest.
la solpa'i / la selpa'i / la me zi'o already discussed it over on his blog:
Having said that, there is this fancy word, {zo'ei} (of LAhE).
It's roughly equivalent to {zo'e pe}, but more of a single word than two.
While {tu'a}, {jai} and {kai'a} (from the blog post) relate to a sumti and an event,
{zo'ei} is a relation between a sumti and something related to it.
This brings us to metonyms.
Metonyms are somewhat related to metaphors;
they are the usage of an object in a sentence instead of something of that object.
For example, in the sentence "Orders came in from the office", even though "office" really stands for "boss" (or something), "office" is used because it has some relation to "boss".
If we were to translate this sentence to Lojban with the metonym usage, we'd get
{ lo briju cu minde }.
Because Lojban is a logical language to some extent, it's incorrect to say that -- offices don't give orders.
Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event), { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X. X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
zoi'e : X : Y
It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
~ mi'e la uakci mu'o
Jacob Errington
Jul 12, 2016, 9:16:37 AM7/12/16
to loj...@googlegroups.com
.i coi ro do
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:08 AM, Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event), { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X. X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>
> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>
> tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
> zoi'e : X : Y
>
> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
Agreed. A {jai}-like cmavo to perform the action of {zo'ei} would be pretty cool.
First, I would like to point to {jai'a}[1] (in its own selma'o) which latro'a and I coined quite a while ago to promote arbitrary LAhE into selbri transformers. Being able to promote LAhE is cumbersome though, and I think that a {jai}-like {zo'ei} would be enough in practice.
Second, I say "selbri transformer" because although SE can act as selbri transformers, they are overloaded to also operate on BAI (or more generally tags) and on connectives. That being said there is a tradeoff to be made in deciding whether the new cmavo should be in SE or in a new selma'o. Specifically, by placing it in SE without coming up with (ideally useful) semantics about its interactions with tags and connectives opens the door to new kinds of nonsense. On the other hand, everybody understands SE and adding selma'o should be done lightly.
Finally, I don't know what {kai'a} means. Could someone add it to jbovlaste?
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
[1] http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/jai'a
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:08 AM, Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event), { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X. X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>
> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>
> tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
> zoi'e : X : Y
>
> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
First, I would like to point to {jai'a}[1] (in its own selma'o) which latro'a and I coined quite a while ago to promote arbitrary LAhE into selbri transformers. Being able to promote LAhE is cumbersome though, and I think that a {jai}-like {zo'ei} would be enough in practice.
Second, I say "selbri transformer" because although SE can act as selbri transformers, they are overloaded to also operate on BAI (or more generally tags) and on connectives. That being said there is a tradeoff to be made in deciding whether the new cmavo should be in SE or in a new selma'o. Specifically, by placing it in SE without coming up with (ideally useful) semantics about its interactions with tags and connectives opens the door to new kinds of nonsense. On the other hand, everybody understands SE and adding selma'o should be done lightly.
Finally, I don't know what {kai'a} means. Could someone add it to jbovlaste?
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
[1] http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/jai'a
Bruno Panasiewicz
Jul 12, 2016, 11:32:00 AM7/12/16
to mriste
On 12 July 2016 at 15:16, Jacob Errington <ja...@mail.jerrington.me> wrote:
.i coi ro do
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:08 AM, Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event), { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X. X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>
> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>
> tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
> zoi'e : X : Y
>
> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
Agreed. A {jai}-like cmavo to perform the action of {zo'ei} would be pretty cool.
It would, just like {jai}. I imagine Loglanists (and maybe Lojbanists of the 80s) struggle with {da poi tu'a ke'a} and {lo ckaji be lo ka tu'a ce'u}. Similarly, we're struggling with the lack of X, so I guess it's worth considering it.
First, I would like to point to {jai'a}[1] (in its own selma'o) which latro'a and I coined quite a while ago to promote arbitrary LAhE into selbri transformers. Being able to promote LAhE is cumbersome though, and I think that a {jai}-like {zo'ei} would be enough in practice.
I agree. {jai'a} seems to be a useful thing, but {jai'a zo'ei} would be too much, taking its frequency into account. (That is, frequency of usage IF {jai'a} was mainstreamed.)
Second, I say "selbri transformer" because although SE can act as selbri transformers, they are overloaded to also operate on BAI (or more generally tags) and on connectives. That being said there is a tradeoff to be made in deciding whether the new cmavo should be in SE or in a new selma'o. Specifically, by placing it in SE without coming up with (ideally useful) semantics about its interactions with tags and connectives opens the door to new kinds of nonsense. On the other hand, everybody understands SE and adding selma'o should be done lightly.
That's a big issue, because everyone'd be split over whether to have it in SE. I think it's time to implement something like multiple selma'o for a word.
As for that, considering the {li} & {cu} merge (having {li} take over {cu}'s functions to free a point in the small monosyllabary space), {li} would be in a horrible situation -- would it be in LI? CU? something else? It'd need to be in two selma'o *at once*: the number to sumti modifiers (now LI) and the selbri starter (now CU).
I guess it's important to consider more-than-one-selma'o words that don't create a horrible mess on the selma'o list.
Back to the main point: now I think that SE would be a better choice, because assigning a meaning to {X BAI} isn't a big deal (perhaps it'd be the same as {BAI zo'ei}).
Finally, I don't know what {kai'a} means. Could someone add it to jbovlaste?
It's discussed in the blog post I linked to. selpa'i didn't add it to JVS because the name was only for the sake of the article and not permanent.
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
i mi'e kamyuakcykezykempavdzakai mu'o re'i jo'au bomzanturfa'i xi pa pi pa xa
[1] http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/jai'a
Bob LeChevalier
Jul 13, 2016, 9:03:57 PM7/13/16
to loj...@googlegroups.com
> Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event),
> { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X.
> X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the
> {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which
> is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>
> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>
> tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
> zoi'e : X : Y
>
> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
>
> { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X.
> X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the
> {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which
> is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>
> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>
> tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
> zoi'e : X : Y
>
> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.
>
> ~ mi'e la uakci mu'o
Back in the 90s, when tu'e and jai were added to the language, Nick
Nicholas frequently talked about metonymy, and he may have discussed
this issue. If you look in the Lojban List archives for "metonymy" it
might be easy to find, since that word hasn't popped up too often
outside Nick's discussions.
lojbab
Bruno Panasiewicz
Jul 14, 2016, 3:18:01 AM7/14/16
to mriste
ni'o la lojbab cu babzba di'e se pi'o ke ju'o lo ri skami:
Ah, that means I'm not the first one thinking about this issue. I couldn't find the archives. Do you know where they are? I'd like to look at those discussions. (Or is the discussion too old to have been archived?)
> lojbab
~ mi'e la pe'ukci mu'o
Bob LeChevalier
Jul 14, 2016, 9:27:09 PM7/14/16
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On 7/14/2016 3:17 AM, Bruno Panasiewicz wrote:
>> Back in the 90s, when tu'e and jai were added to the language, Nick
> Nicholas frequently talked about metonymy, and he may have discussed
> this issue. If you look in the Lojban List archives for "metonymy" it
> might be easy to find, since that word hasn't popped up too often
> outside Nick's discussions.
>
>> Back in the 90s, when tu'e and jai were added to the language, Nick
> Nicholas frequently talked about metonymy, and he may have discussed
> this issue. If you look in the Lojban List archives for "metonymy" it
> might be easy to find, since that word hasn't popped up too often
> outside Nick's discussions.
>
> Ah, that means I'm not the first one thinking about this issue. I
> couldn't find the archives. Do you know where they are? I'd like to look
> at those discussions. (Or is the discussion too old to have been archived?)
Easiest solution is to go to google groups. Select lojban, search for
> couldn't find the archives. Do you know where they are? I'd like to look
> at those discussions. (Or is the discussion too old to have been archived?)
"metonymy" in that group. It looks like others besides Nick mentioned
the topic back in the 90s
lojbab
gleki.is...@gmail.com
Jul 29, 2016, 7:11:31 AM7/29/16
to lojban
Em terça-feira, 12 de julho de 2016 13:08:51 UTC+3, la uakci escreveu:
Hi!The other day, I was thinking, "wouldn't it be useful to have a sumti-raising infix cmavo?".In other words, wouldn't it be useful to have a cmavo that goes between the raised sumti and the rest.la solpa'i / la selpa'i / la me zi'o already discussed it over on his blog:Having said that, there is this fancy word, {zo'ei} (of LAhE).It's roughly equivalent to {zo'e pe}, but more of a single word than two.While {tu'a}, {jai} and {kai'a} (from the blog post) relate to a sumti and an event,{zo'ei} is a relation between a sumti and something related to it.This brings us to metonyms.
Why is "sumti-raising" is in the topic? :)
Metonymy and raising are separate beasts.
Bruno Panasiewicz
Jul 29, 2016, 8:46:44 AM7/29/16
to mriste
b
lanu blanu:
Em terça-feira, 12 de julho de 2016 13:08:51 UTC+3, la uakci escreveu:Hi!The other day, I was thinking, "wouldn't it be useful to have a sumti-raising infix cmavo?".In other words, wouldn't it be useful to have a cmavo that goes between the raised sumti and the rest.la solpa'i / la selpa'i / la me zi'o already discussed it over on his blog:Having said that, there is this fancy word, {zo'ei} (of LAhE).It's roughly equivalent to {zo'e pe}, but more of a single word than two.While {tu'a}, {jai} and {kai'a} (from the blog post) relate to a sumti and an event,{zo'ei} is a relation between a sumti and something related to it.This brings us to metonyms.Why is "sumti-raising" is in the topic? :)Metonymy and raising are separate beasts.
1) Not really. Metonymy relates an object to something related to that object (well duh),
and sumti-raising relates an object to an event related to that object. Thus, sumti-raising
is a subset of metonymy.
2) The first email reads, "This brings us to metonyms", meaning that the topic moved from sumti-
-raising to metonymy. Oops. The "parallel" topic to the main one turned out to be the main one,
my bad.
Anyway, QUESTIONS! Please contribute to the topic.
~ mi'e la uakci mu'o re'i
Gleki Arxokuna
Jul 29, 2016, 9:32:33 AM7/29/16
to loj...@googlegroups.com
2016-07-29 15:46 GMT+03:00 Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak...@gmail.com>:
blanu blanu:
Em terça-feira, 12 de julho de 2016 13:08:51 UTC+3, la uakci escreveu:Hi!The other day, I was thinking, "wouldn't it be useful to have a sumti-raising infix cmavo?".In other words, wouldn't it be useful to have a cmavo that goes between the raised sumti and the rest.la solpa'i / la selpa'i / la me zi'o already discussed it over on his blog:Having said that, there is this fancy word, {zo'ei} (of LAhE).It's roughly equivalent to {zo'e pe}, but more of a single word than two.While {tu'a}, {jai} and {kai'a} (from the blog post) relate to a sumti and an event,{zo'ei} is a relation between a sumti and something related to it.This brings us to metonyms.Why is "sumti-raising" is in the topic? :)Metonymy and raising are separate beasts.1) Not really. Metonymy relates an object to something related to that object (well duh),and sumti-raising relates an object to an event related to that object. Thus, sumti-raisingis a subset of metonymy.
Yes, I meant {tu'a}, which cannot work for "Plato and Shakespear are here in this room on the same shelf."
2) The first email reads, "This brings us to metonyms", meaning that the topic moved from sumti--raising to metonymy. Oops. The "parallel" topic to the main one turned out to be the main one,my bad.Anyway, QUESTIONS! Please contribute to the topic.~ mi'e la uakci mu'o re'i
Metonyms are somewhat related to metaphors;they are the usage of an object in a sentence instead of something of that object.For example, in the sentence "Orders came in from the office", even though "office" really stands for "boss" (or something), "office" is used because it has some relation to "boss".If we were to translate this sentence to Lojban with the metonym usage, we'd get{ lo briju cu minde }.Because Lojban is a logical language to some extent, it's incorrect to say that -- offices don't give orders.Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event), { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X. X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.Explaining it with a simple relation might help:tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::zoi'e : X : YIt's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.~ mi'e la uakci mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/q7yZbfzMa6w/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Bruno Panasiewicz
Jul 29, 2016, 10:45:40 AM7/29/16
to mriste
On Jul 29, 2016 3:32 PM, "Gleki Arxokuna" <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2016-07-29 15:46 GMT+03:00 Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> b
>> lanu blanu:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Em terça-feira, 12 de julho de 2016 13:08:51 UTC+3, la uakci escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> The other day, I was thinking, "wouldn't it be useful to have a sumti-raising infix cmavo?".
>>>> In other words, wouldn't it be useful to have a cmavo that goes between the raised sumti and the rest.
>>>>
>>>> la solpa'i / la selpa'i / la me zi'o already discussed it over on his blog:
>>>> http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/proprietor-fronting
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, there is this fancy word, {zo'ei} (of LAhE).
>>>> It's roughly equivalent to {zo'e pe}, but more of a single word than two.
>>>> While {tu'a}, {jai} and {kai'a} (from the blog post) relate to a sumti and an event,
>>>> {zo'ei} is a relation between a sumti and something related to it.
>>>>
>>>> This brings us to metonyms.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is "sumti-raising" is in the topic? :)
>>> Metonymy and raising are separate beasts.
>>
>>
>> 1) Not really. Metonymy relates an object to something related to that object (well duh),
>> and sumti-raising relates an object to an event related to that object. Thus, sumti-raising
>> is a subset of metonymy.
>
>
> Yes, I meant {tu'a}, which cannot work for "Plato and Shakespear are here in this room on the same shelf."
The title uses metonymy. zo'o
~ mi'edo'u
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
Pierre Abbat
Aug 3, 2016, 10:22:05 PM8/3/16
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Friday, July 29, 2016 16:31:51 Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Yes, I meant {tu'a}, which cannot work for "Plato and Shakespear are here
> in this room on the same shelf."
Cmene are allowed to be polysemous. Unlike, for example, {malpigi}, which may
> Yes, I meant {tu'a}, which cannot work for "Plato and Shakespear are here
> in this room on the same shelf."
not refer to both a fruit and an excretory organ, {la .platon.} may refer both
to a person and to a book he wrote.
Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.
karis
Aug 15, 2016, 3:58:52 PM8/15/16
to lojban
On the question of making cu part of li I don't see how there meanings are anywhere close enough to Mic even if their place in a sentence are the same.
Bruno Panasiewicz
Aug 15, 2016, 4:19:00 PM8/15/16
to mriste
That is or isn't the point, depending on the intentions of the proposers. I think that the main motive is to free up a spot in the now expensive short cmavo space. Simply, the uses of «li» and «cu» have no overlaps, so collapsing them is a good idea.
— mi'e la uakci mu'o re'i
.i .e'e do co'a zukte su'o .y rimsaxsi'u —
On Aug 15, 2016 9:58 PM, "karis" <comca...@gmail.com> wrote:
On the question of making cu part of li I don't see how there meanings are anywhere close enough to Mic even if their place in a sentence are the same.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG
Aug 15, 2016, 7:55:22 PM8/15/16
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On 8/15/2016 4:18 PM, Bruno Panasiewicz wrote:
> That is or isn't the point, depending on the intentions of the
> proposers. I think that the main motive is to free up a spot in the now
> expensive short cmavo space. Simply, the uses of «li» and «cu» have no
> overlaps, so collapsing them is a good idea.
[large number of strongly negative attitudinals]
> That is or isn't the point, depending on the intentions of the
> proposers. I think that the main motive is to free up a spot in the now
> expensive short cmavo space. Simply, the uses of «li» and «cu» have no
> overlaps, so collapsing them is a good idea.
Why does "having no overlaps" make it "a good idea"? The language is
Lojban, not Speedtalk". And why those particular words; they are hardly
the least used short words in the language?
If one were going to collapse two words, one would probably want them as
similar as possible in meaning and usage..
This would be an incredibly bad idea, if only because of the relearning
penalty and the invalidation of almost thirty years of language use. It
is that sort of arbitrary prescriptive change that I have fought most
strongly against.
And why is it necessary to free up a spot? We are supposedly done with
the language design. There should be no new cmavo unless they arise
through actual usage, and it is rather hard to imagine a usage arising
so useful as to suddenly and arbitrarily demand a short wordform.
Especially since no such need has arisen in 30 years.
But if such occurred there are other choices far better than jamming two
entirely unrelated functions into one word (something that was
explicitly designed OUT of the language). Move a little-use 2 letter
cmavo out of that word space (or even eliminate it; e.g. de and di could
be replaced by da with a subscript).
Seriously considering this sort of change at this stage of the language,
is a good way to get lojbab to retire immediately and permanently.
lojbab
karis
Aug 15, 2016, 10:42:12 PM8/15/16
to lojban
I thought I had posted a response, but don't see it so here goes. Basically what I was saying was that the two concepts are quite different and I see no reason to change such a basic part of the language.
karis
Bruno Panasiewicz
Aug 16, 2016, 2:19:09 AM8/16/16
to mriste
On Aug 16, 2016 1:55 AM, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/15/2016 4:18 PM, Bruno Panasiewicz wrote:
>>
>> That is or isn't the point, depending on the intentions of the
>> proposers. I think that the main motive is to free up a spot in the now
>> expensive short cmavo space. Simply, the uses of «li» and «cu» have no
>> overlaps, so collapsing them is a good idea.
>
>
> [large number of strongly negative attitudinals]
>
> Why does "having no overlaps" make it "a good idea"? The language is Lojban, not Speedtalk". And why those particular words; they are hardly the least used short words in the language?
>
> If one were going to collapse two words, one would probably want them as similar as possible in meaning and usage..
>
> This would be an incredibly bad idea, if only because of the relearning penalty and the invalidation of almost thirty years of language use. It is that sort of arbitrary prescriptive change that I have fought most strongly against.
I didn't say I'm with the proposal; I simply mentioned it. I agree it's a not very good idea.
>
> And why is it necessary to free up a spot? We are supposedly done with the language design. There should be no new cmavo unless they arise through actual usage, and it is rather hard to imagine a usage arising so useful as to suddenly and arbitrarily demand a short wordform. Especially since no such need has arisen in 30 years.
>
> But if such occurred there are other choices far better than jamming two entirely unrelated functions into one word (something that was explicitly designed OUT of the language). Move a little-use 2 letter cmavo out of that word space (or even eliminate it; e.g. de and di could be replaced by da with a subscript).
>
> Seriously considering this sort of change at this stage of the language, is a good way to get lojbab to retire immediately and permanently.
.i ja'o do co'u se jibni vau .u'i
>
> lojbab
— mi'e se cmene be zo uakci mu'o re'i —
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages