No pigs eat oysters. They are too delicate. A pig came up to a dog. He bit him. While working with translating texts may turn up new areas that require work, this one seems to have only recreated the idiosyncrasies of French verb tenses and the inadequacies of natural language anaphoric pronouns. Notice btw the amount of space devoted to trying to fit all of this into a "provisional" phonology and lexicon.
Sent from my iPad
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Mike S. < maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jorge Llambías < jjllambias@hidden.email>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Mike S. < maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > formula := "hu" sentence* huk desinence | (the rest)
>>
>> Sounds good. Should we assign zu ... zukV to it?
>
> That's fine. If z- is for pure structure words, then I assume ha, he and
> hi will eventually be (something like) za, ze and zi?
I think zu ... zukV should be a core formula rather than a formula though.
Yes, that seems right.
> perfective F = lo fo F mlno
> "the event of F is done"
>
> imperfective F = lo fo F na mlno
> "the event of F is not done"
>
> F by itself encompasses either, or both. I think that works.
My worry is that there are different notions of completion. "I didn't
completely trust him" is not a case of imperfective aspect. But
"mln-"/"na mln-" is fine as a first approximation.
Okay, then maybe mlfs < mulno fasnu "complete/done/finished event/state of affairs"
"Last restriction" seems too metalinguistic for my taste. I'm not sure
>> I like the idea of the meaning of a predicate depending on the choice
>> of variable names.
>
> I think "last restriction" just means "anaphoric". I don't have a problem
> with a plain unbound variable being used for "he/she/it/they", but if we
> wanted to provide a way of making that sort of usage explicit, we could set
> aside dz from L dza < da (anaphors are probably closer to L ri or by, but
> those don't have rafsi).
>
> lo fo la je nmssa mlta vska'aka mlno. sa dza xkra. ra dza ctka. la dza
> je'u klma'aka bjra.
> I saw several cats (done event). Some of them were black. All of them
> were eating. They, after I approached them, ran.
>
> Right now, I'd say:
>
> lo fo la je nmssa mlta vska'aka mlno. se [la je nmssa mlta] mneka xkre.
> re [la je nmssa mlta] mneka ctke. je'u [la je nmssa mlta] klma'aka [la je
> nmssa mlta] bjra.
OK.
> Then we could have all variables except special ones implicitly simply
> bound by "lV dzV". The difference with "tfV" is that "dzV" refers back to
> something already referenced, and "tfV" is more glorkative.
>
> This is just brainstorming on my part.
Are you thinking that "la dza bbba" and "le dze bbbe" would be taken
to have different meanings, even though they only differ in what
should be an irrelevant choice of bound variable? Would "dz-" capture
the implicit restriction rule we had been using before?
Yes, "dzV" would invoke that rule explicitly whereas "tf" is possibly a totally new binding. I'll mention that I see both the implicit binding rule and dzV behaving just as third person anaphoric pronouns do in some natural languages. So these would be fine to me
na sa xrja vfla. la dza na se sme nlveka
No pig flies. They have no wings.
Sa xrja [imperfect aspect] bjra. la dza xkra.
Some pig(s) is/are running. It's/they're black.
The first "la dza" could be called a generic reference ["they" is equivalent to bare plural "pigs"] and the second a definite one ["it"="that pig" / "they"="those pigs"]. If there is any mystery to the first, I'll just observe that "na sa xrja vfla" means exactly "ra xrja na vfla". So I think that "la dza" / "they" really means "ra xjra" / "every pig" in this case. The second case is similar to Lojban "ri" and "Cy".
>> So:
>>
>> ne'u = lo blvoko'e fo
>> ne'akV = lo dtcVko fo
>>
>> ?
>
> I can't figure out what "dtc" means.
From Lojban (unofficial) gismu "ditcu". "x1 is the duration of x2".
Ah, okay.
> My idea for "je'a" and "ne'a" was:
>
> je'a F1 F2
> = lo fo F1 lu fu F2 cbnuko
> = "While F1, F2"
>
> ne'a F2
> = lu fu F2 cbnuko'e
> = "Meanwhile, F2"
>
> I think "cbn" could most broadly be interpreted to mean "The duration of
> event x1 temporally overlaps with the duration of event x2". If so, we
> could give "cbn" an x3 metrically specifying the duration of that overlap,
> and allow a free variable in the "ne'akV" and "je'akV":
>
> je'ake F1 F2
> = lo fo F1 lu fu F2 cbnukoke
> = "For duration E, while F1, F2"
>
> ne'ake F2
> = lu fu F2 cbnuko'eke
> = "For duration E, meanwhile, F2" = "For duration E, F2"
>
> Likewise, we could give "prc" and "blv" an x3 metrically specifying the
> temporal offset separating x1 and x2:
>
> je'i[ke] F1 F2
> = lo fo F1 lu fu F2 prcuko[ke]
> [Some amount of time(e)] before F1, F2.
>
> je'u[ke] F1 F2
> = lo fo F1 lu fu F2 blvuko[ke]
> [Some amount of time(e)] after F1, F2.
>
> ne'i[ke] F2
> = lu fu F2 prcuko'e[ke]
> [Some amount of time(e)] earlier, F2.
>
> ne'u[ke] F2
> = lu fu F2 blvuko'e[ke]
> [Some amount of time(e)] later, F2.
>
> Those operators would handle: while, before, after; and the related
> metrics: how long, how long ago, how long afterward. One thing we don't
> have is the 'punctual' sense "when" as opposed to "while". I think that
> sense "when" probably can be handled as "immediately after" + the aspect
> meaning "begin". So:
>
> la mlta lo nlo je'uko [event begins] klma'aka, bjra.
> The cat, in no time after I begin to approach it, runs.
>
> ... which seems to mean roughly:
>
> When I approach the cat, it runs.
>
> ... but which is not the same as:
>
> la mlta je'a klma'aka, bjra.
> The cat, while I approach it, runs.
Interesting ideas, I will need some time to digest them
co ma'a xrxe
No hurry. -- co ma'a mke Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.comMy LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com
|