Re: [engelang] Xorban: Proposal for -k-, -b- - engelang messages

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PROPOSAL
>
> The first step seems to be this: make "b" the first (optional) argument
> separator, and define it to separate an agent from a patient. In other
> words, if "b" appears, then the first argument is an agent and the second is
> a patient. Some examples:
>
> spfe "E is broken" => spfabe "A breaks E"
> nrkleki "E enters I" => nrklabeki "A puts E into I"
> plnaki "A uses I" => plnabeki "A does something to E using I"

(Side issue: shouldn't "A breaks E" be based on "E breaks" rather than
on "E is broken", or else "E puts E into I" be based on "E is in I"
rather than on "E enters I"? Either always base it on the state or
always on the change of state?)

(Continuing side issue: Yes, I smoothed over the question of dynamicism for purposes of simplicity. Probably there will need for static and dynamic unaries at some point. IMO this issue slightly overlaps with aspect.)

> That should be mostly clear, but there is an important difference between
> "plnaki" and the other two formulas that needs to be noted. The first two
> predicates are defined as primitively patientive and non-agentive, so when
> -b- is applied, an agent is added to the structure in the first place, and
> the others are moved one place forward. In "plnaki", the predicate
> structure is defined as primitively non-patientive and agentive, so when -b-
> is applied, the agent stays in the first place, a patient is added in the
> second, and the others are moved one place forward.

In a system like this we should probably strive to define predicates
as patientive as much as possible.

I'm not sure about strive, but yeah "when in doubt, make it a patientive" seems to be a rule of thumb. Other recent thoughts here - http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/engelang/message/246

> The production rules would be:
>
> - simple-formula := CCC* V(‘V)* ( b V(‘V)*)* ( k V(‘V)*)*

Or equivalently:

simple-formula := CCC* ( V(‘V)* b)* V(‘V)* ( k V(‘V)*)*

which I think highlights the position of the "obligatory" argument more clearly.

It's a minor point but the argument that's obligatory without -b- or -k- could end up on the left side of the rightmost -b- when -b- does appear.

One advantage of bV() over -Vb- that you didn't mention is that it can
operate on any formula rather than just add one place to a
simple-formula. So you could have:

ba na mvde
"A makes E not move."

Yes, indeed. That's an issue. Right now all we have is

lu fu na mvde gsnabu

which can't be easily done with -Vb-, you would need to use a
different stem or introduce a second predicate:

nrmvdabe
"A immovilizes E."

li fi na mvde gsnaki
"A causes the state of affairs in which E doesn't move"

Or:

ba ju trpe bjre
"A makes E scared and run"

for which you would have to repeat -ab-:

ju trpabe bjrabe