Gismu in need of place structure extensions

[Jmive]

What gismu feel like they have incomplete place structures?

The lujvo {ci'erkei} and {kelci'e} feel like they only exist because {kelci} is missing a spot about what game is being played and/or its rules. The primary sense of the word seems to be about unstructured play, in the sense that a child plays with toys. But even this sense could be improved by a place for the game that's being played, as unstructured play can form unstructured games, usually of an imaginative sort, such as "cops and robbers" or "house".

Proposed alternative definition:

x1 plays with toy/plaything/gamepiece x2 in game x3

With this, {kelci} becomes like a recreational (rather than productive) version of {pilno}.

Alterations to existing lujvo semantics: {nunkei} becomes "play session" or a game in the sense meaning "match" -- the thing you're referring to when you say "good game". {samselkei} might mean a gaming console (such that s1=k2); {dracyselkei} might mean a miniature, die, or LARP prop. I would argue that these are closer to the literal meanings of those lujvo to begin with, since {selkei} is defined as "toy", not "game".

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Or if you don't like existing lujvo you can just create new words instead of trying to redo existing words that others have already learned the way they are. This way it'd be less egocentric.

[Jmive]

Egocentric? It might be egocentric if I were to just start using established words in new ways without telling anyone, but bringing it up for community discussion is the very opposite of egocentric.
Besides, according to CLL 9.1:

The place structures of brivla are not absolutely stable aspects of the language. The work done so far has attempted to establish a basic place structure on which all users can, at first, agree. In the light of actual experience with the individual selbri of the language, there will inevitably be some degree of change to the brivla place structures.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

You d have to rewrite old texts to add kelci3 as zi'o and tell just everyone to use kelci the new way.

[Jonathan Jones]

Oh well. Broken words should be fixed. It's been done before.

Backwards compatibility isn't the most important thing with any language. Also, zo'e, not zi'o.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:53 PM Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

You d have to rewrite old texts to add kelci3 as zi'o and tell just everyone to use kelci the new way.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/d501c8f0-c860-48d2-931d-1c5b2476bf1ao%40googlegroups.com.

--

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 )

[deusexma...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 1:53:38 AM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

You d have to rewrite old texts to add kelci3 as zi'o and tell just everyone to use kelci the new way.

oisai kamdrakembauske

[Gleki Arxokuna]

No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different changing semantics

[Jonathan Jones]

I don't care enough to argue and am going back into lurking, but, no. 

Also. {nunkei}

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:33 AM Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different changing semantics

--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/ab48c810-ccf1-45ab-8e6b-1e7fd0bf192fo%40googlegroups.com.

[deusexma...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different changing semantics

This doesn't follow. The presence of a {zo'e} in a bridi does not imply the existence of an entity for which the bridi holds if the {zo'e} is substituted for that entity. That's {da}. As an elliptical, {zo'e} assumes the value of whatever sumti is contextually implied... and if context implies that nothing fits in that place, that sumti is {zi'o}. {zi'o} is a way of explicitly expressing that that particular place is inapplicable in the current context, but {zo'e} is not an explicit way of expressing that it is; it's a way of skipping a place and leaving its value implied.

Moreover, {kelci} is already sometimes used in the sense of playing a game, there exists text that would not break if read using my new definition {kelci}, but would break if read using my new {kelci} and edited to fill in the x3 place with {zi'o}. From La Alis chapter 8:

.i lo nu kelci cu cfari .i la .alis. cu jinvi lo du'u no roi lo nunji'e pu viska lo tai kelcrkroke foldi

In this context, {lo nu kelci be fi zi'o} would be incorrect. They are playing croquet.

[deusexma...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 2:02:20 PM UTC-4, aionys wrote:

Also. {nunkei}

Under my proposed definition, {nunkei} becomes "match" or "play session". {caxmat .i se xamgu lo nunkei} would mean "Checkmate. Good game." Whereas {caxmat .i se xamgu lo terkei} would communicate "Checkmate. Chess is a good game."

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:14:33 PM EDT deusexma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Under my proposed definition, {nunkei} becomes "match" or "play session".
> {caxmat .i se xamgu lo nunkei} would mean "Checkmate. Good game." Whereas
> {caxmat .i se xamgu lo terkei} would communicate "Checkmate. Chess is a
> good game."

I thought "la .caxmat." meant "chess". When used as an interjection in a game
of chess, it means "checkmate"? How do you say "checkmate" as a verb, or a
noun?

Pierre
--
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.

[Jonathan Jones]

Nit-picky and not on topic, la.pier.

--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/3360897.iV0ZgHrkO0%40puma.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

You are changing the definition of gismu. This means old texts will break. You told it yourself, I'm just commenting on that. The current official definition of kelci has the concept of game inapplicable. That's why you have to use zi'o to fix old texts. If Alice uses non-standard meaning of kelci then the text has to be fixed.
E.g. pleci = x1 plays game x2 (property of x1)

[Adam Lopresto]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:12 PM <deusexma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different changing semantics

This doesn't follow. The presence of a {zo'e} in a bridi does not imply the existence of an entity for which the bridi holds if the {zo'e} is substituted for that entity. That's {da}. As an elliptical, {zo'e} assumes the value of whatever sumti is contextually implied... and if context implies that nothing fits in that place, that sumti is {zi'o}. {zi'o} is a way of explicitly expressing that that particular place is inapplicable in the current context, but {zo'e} is not an explicit way of expressing that it is; it's a way of skipping a place and leaving its value implied.

That's wrong about {zo'e} and about {zi'o}. {zo'e} absolutely does imply the existence of an entity that satisfies the bridi. The way in which it's different from {da} is that it also makes a claim about what that entity is (specifically, that its value can be inferred from context, or that its particular value isn't important in this context). {mi patfu zo'e} implies {mi patfu da} every bit as much as {mi patfu do} does. 

 

{zi'o}, on the other hand, doesn't say anything at all about what can or can't fill that place. All it does is create a new predicate that doesn't include that place. Now, as a practical matter, it's relatively rare to assert a predicate that explicitly removes a place unless you want to imply that the predicate with that place wouldn't also hold, but that's by no means necessary. The empty set satisfies {zilcmi} ({se cmima be zi'o}, but so do all other sets. The members place is removed, but there's no implication that it's necessarily unfillable. 

 

Moreover, {kelci} is already sometimes used in the sense of playing a game, there exists text that would not break if read using my new definition {kelci}, but would break if read using my new {kelci} and edited to fill in the x3 place with {zi'o}. From La Alis chapter 8:

.i lo nu kelci cu cfari .i la .alis. cu jinvi lo du'u no roi lo nunji'e pu viska lo tai kelcrkroke foldi

In this context, {lo nu kelci be fi zi'o} would be incorrect. They are playing croquet.

{lo nu kelci be fi zi'o}, if kelci3 were the game, would still be true. If you ignore what game they're playing, they're still playing. {zo'e} implies {da}, but {zi'o} does not imply {no da}. 

 

--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/09ceaddd-3561-422a-a4b4-958d6562260co%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark E. Shoulson]

The best example I can think of, that helps me understand {zi'o}, is to realize that {cliva} is {klama be zi'o} (really {klama be zi'o bei fu zi'o}, but it's the lack of destination that makes the difference.)  Similarly, {litru} is {klama be zi'o bei zi'o}.  Not that you can't have a source or a destination when you {litru}, but they are not only irrelevant, there are not any part of the assertion.

(can {zo'e} not ever wind up meaning {no da}?  It makes sense that it shouldn't, but was there a counterexample to that...?)

~mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CABM8VqdzVM2w3mXgUcZG6uqkBy-Q%2BLY5dRre-edXHu3%2Bn_Cc5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jmive]

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 9:50:45 AM UTC-4 Adam Lopresto wrote:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:12 PM <deusexma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different changing semantics

This doesn't follow. The presence of a {zo'e} in a bridi does not imply the existence of an entity for which the bridi holds if the {zo'e} is substituted for that entity. That's {da}. As an elliptical, {zo'e} assumes the value of whatever sumti is contextually implied... and if context implies that nothing fits in that place, that sumti is {zi'o}. {zi'o} is a way of explicitly expressing that that particular place is inapplicable in the current context, but {zo'e} is not an explicit way of expressing that it is; it's a way of skipping a place and leaving its value implied.

That's wrong about {zo'e} and about {zi'o}. {zo'e} absolutely does imply the existence of an entity that satisfies the bridi. The way in which it's different from {da} is that it also makes a claim about what that entity is (specifically, that its value can be inferred from context, or that its particular value isn't important in this context). {mi patfu zo'e} implies {mi patfu da} every bit as much as {mi patfu do} does.

{zi'o}, on the other hand, doesn't say anything at all about what can or can't fill that place. All it does is create a new predicate that doesn't include that place. Now, as a practical matter, it's relatively rare to assert a predicate that explicitly removes a place unless you want to imply that the predicate with that place wouldn't also hold, but that's by no means necessary. The empty set satisfies {zilcmi} ({se cmima be zi'o}, but so do all other sets. The members place is removed, but there's no implication that it's necessarily unfillable.

By the book, I suppose you're right: the book gives {loi jmive cu se zbasu fi loi selci} as incorrect because "We do not generally suppose ... that someone 'makes' living things from cells."

But I would contest that this a problem with {zo'e}: if we don't generally suppose that, then context would imply that {lo zbasu} here is equal to {zi'o} if not for the fact that {zi'o} is a special case among sumti in that it cannot be elliptically implied. Requiring an explicit {zi'o} in such a context violates the principle of least effort. It also means, as Gleki points out, that any change at all to the place structure of any bridi is liable to break older texts. Yet as the book points out, that very sort of change is inevitable. Allowing the elliptical implication of {zi'o} would fix this problem: the fact that those texts are older is the context that implies the existence of a {zi'o}.

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 8:59:00 AM UTC-4 gleki.is...@gmail.com wrote:

You are changing the definition of gismu. This means old texts will break. You told it yourself, I'm just commenting on that. The current official definition of kelci has the concept of game inapplicable. That's why you have to use zi'o to fix old texts. If Alice uses non-standard meaning of kelci then the text has to be fixed.
E.g. pleci = x1 plays game x2 (property of x1)

Take that up with xorxes if you want: he does translate the English words "the game began" as {lo nu kelci cu cfari} and "the players" as {lo kelci}. Both of those English phrases indicate that a game is being played. I take this as evidence that the word as used has semantic content related to games or gaming, regardless of how it is officially defined. {samselkei} and {dracyselkei} (which, again, by official definitions, literally mean "computer toy" and "roleplaying toy") also indicate that this is how people are trying to use the word. Taking this into account, an additional {kelci} place to accommodate the game being played would be a strict improvement of the word itself, and I think, would alter the semantics of most existing texts far less than you seem to fear: no text where {kelci} is used in a sense expressing the playing of games would be at all harmed.

Alternatively, we could define {lo te kelci} as "a game or playful activity". A bridi to express that a kid is playing with a basketball by dribbling it might then be {lo verba cu kelci lo lankyboi lo nu mirjalgau}, even though in English we would not usually call dribbling a game. This way, even if the value of a {zo'e} can never, ever, ever be {zi'o}, no existing usage of {kelci} would be semantically altered in any meaningful way, because {ko'a kelci} already implies that some playful activity is taking place.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Usage can be incorrect. Take the story of dikyjvo. We don't want Lojban to become a language evolved from incorrect readings of gimste, do we.

[Jmive]

On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 7:13:26 AM UTC-4 gleki.is...@gmail.com wrote:

Usage can be incorrect. Take the story of dikyjvo. We don't want Lojban to become a language evolved from incorrect readings of gimste, do we.

oicai malkamdrakembaupevyske. Words mean what people mean by them. {dikyjvo} was an anomalous misnomer that was abandoned in favor of a better alternative that already existed in the language. No such alternative exists for the gaming sense of {kelci}. If {kelci} must not be used to mean "x1 plays a game", then both {kelci'e} and {ci'erkei} are wrong and there has been a gaping semantic hole in the language's lexicon for all of its existence up to this point -- games are a cultural universal; there really ought to be a gismu for that -- and this hole has been de facto filled by {kelci}, in spite of any supposed linguistic imperative that the word absolutely must not be used in such a way.

In such a case it is only sensible to bend to the will of the selbau and define the word in the sense in which it is commonly used. Coining the experimental "x1 plays game x2" would (by your reasoning) also be a poor choice: you would have edit all the old texts and tell everyone to change the way they {kelci}, replacing the previous "incorrect" usage with {pleci}. By your reasoning, we're screwed either way: either all text both past and future must zi'o out kelci3 wherever {kelci} is not being used in the gaming-related sense, or all text both past and future must substitute in the newfangled {pleci} wherever {kelci} is being used in the gaming-related sense.

But again, the semantic change to existing texts could be minimized if we define kelci3 to also apply to playful activities that are not games as such. Play is active, so play taking place logically necessitates that some playful activity is taking place. Behold, both senses of the word are encompassed, and no change to any existing text or usage is necessary.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Are you a native English speaker? Or some SAE language? I consider your reasoning malgli. Do you speak any East Asia languages?

[Jmive]

Ignoring the ad hominem, my reasoning is basic linguistic descriptivism. There's nothing malgli about that. Do you have any specific criticisms of specific arguments I make? Do you have a problem with my premises; if so, which ones, and what do you see wrong with them?

[Bob LeChevalier]

On 6/25/2020 2:03 PM, deusexma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>
> No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different
> changing semantics
>

> This doesn't follow. The presence of a {zo'e} //in a bridi does not

> imply the existence of an entity for which the bridi holds if the {zo'e}
> is substituted for that entity. That's {da}. As an elliptical, {zo'e}
> assumes the value of whatever sumti is contextually implied... and if
> context implies that nothing fits in that place, that sumti is {zi'o}.

No. zi'o is not a possible value to fill an elided place. It is
grammatically a sumti, but semantically it is more than merely a
null-value, because it changes the nature of the underlying
relationship/predication. To allow that would destroy one of the
fundamental logical parts of the language, which is that even if a place
is elided, it is still implicitly a part of the predication/relationship.

It was not originally a part of the language, but was added as a
shortcut for people that did not want to create new words for restricted
concepts.

"noda" is also not a plausible elidable value for a similar reason.

> Moreover, {kelci} is already sometimes used in the sense of playing a
> game,

kelci as it is works whether one is playing a game or not. "Playing a
game" is usually a subset of "playing". (It might be argued that
professional players of a game or sport are not really "playing" in the
broad sense intended for kelci. "Play" generally connotes recreational
or non-serious activity in the broad sense, and strict rules and/or
strong goal-directed (as in for money or other high stakes) really
deviates from that broad sense and probably should have separate word(s)
invoking the set of rules and/or the system of play and/or the goals.

in general, adding a place to a place structure is a restriction of
meaning. gismu were designed to be broad, with the intent that lujvo
would be created to make such restrictions of meaning.

lojbab

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Lojbab, can you justify the word "plaything/toy" here? No matter how much respect has who gimste must be considered a priority. Nothing is said in the definition about a game as a set of rules of as activity.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I listed possible solutions to the verb "to play". https://lojban.pw/articles/how-to-say-play-in-lojban/

[Ie sk]

Somewhat OT, but whatever:

lojbab:

[...] it changes the nature of the underlying relationship/predication.  To allow that would destroy one of the fundamental logical parts of the language, which is that even if a place is elided, it is still implicitly a part of the predication/relationship.

Which has just reminded me of why the problem (nabmi be mi) of connecting predicates with JE bugs me so much. Usage seems to disregard all non-explicit places in that very common kind of construction. Provocatively speaking, when we uphold 'one of the fundamental logical parts of the languages', CLL 12.12 {ti blanu je zdani} is nonsense.

Yes, I brought this up before. Sorry, please ignore here if inappropriate.

iesk