[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
We have two alternatives, both of which throw Lojban into upheaval: allow gadri-like intensionals into siksu, or allow clausal intensionals into gismu like djica
Sounds like a false dilemma to me. Both are currently allowed,
and even if you were to "clean up" the gismu list so that all
gismu behaved the same way (which would be desirable) you could
still create lujvo and fu'ivla to your heart's content with
the other place structures. There is nothing problematic with
the following fu'ivla:
nitcu'a'a: x1 needs object x2
nitcu'e'e: x1 needs event x2 to happen
nitcu'i'i: x1 needs something with property x2
We might argue all we want which of the three is more useful/
natural/"Lojbanic"/etc, but all of them are well defined and
easy to use. The 'e'e and 'i'i versions both allow to make the
simple distinction between the transparent and opaque readings
of "I need a box", namely:
da poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu'e'e l* nu mi ponse da
mi nitcu'e'e l* nu da poi tanxe zo'u mi ponse da
da poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu'i'i l* ka ce'u du da
mi nitcu'e'e l* ka da poi tanxe zo'u ce'u du da
And the transparent reading is also trivial with nitcu'a'a:
mi nitcu'a'a lo tanxe
The only question is whether or not we have some gadri that
will allow us to get the opaque (and most useful) meaning
from {nitcu'a'a}. I of course would just say {mi nitcu'a'a
lo'e tanxe} for that meaning. But even if we redefined
{nitcu} from its current {nitcu'a'a} meaning to {nitcu'e'e}
or {nitcu'i'i}, the other two predicates are still possible
Lojban predicates.
What we cannot allow is the continuation of the current status, which
allows naive statements like {mi djica lo mikce} for "I need any
doctor". We are damnably lucky noone's realised until now in the
mundane world we've been doing this.
We haven't been doing this. Or rather, every time someone does this, which is inevitable for beginners, we correct them. This has been the case at least since I joined Lojban and I'm pretty sure it was the case before that.
So, to see how feasible things are: (1) Does anyone know how many intensional preds we have?
Potentially, as many as we care to define. Or are you
talking about gismu only? (In fact no pred can be intensional
in Lojban in the sense that they are intensional in English.
{broda lo brode} is always {da poi brode zo'u broda da}, for
any brode.
(2) Is anyone's linguistic intuitions going to be terribly hurt if we
do start saying {mi djica le ka ce'u mikce} and {mi nitcu le ka ce'u
mikce}?
They would be as horrible as {mi sisku le ka ce'u mikce}, no more
nor less.
(3) How big on the richter scale of gismu adjustment would such a move be?
Pretty big, I'd say.
(4) What is the compelling current rendering of the gadri-like alternative?
I'd tell you but you don't listen to me... :)
(5) Do we want intensional arguments like this used freely anywhere in a place structure, or strictly susbcategorised and appearing only with a handful of gismu?
Do you mean saying things like: {le ka ce'u du mi cu klama
le ka ce'u du le zarci} instead of {mi klama le zarci}?
No, we don't want that. We could define klama'i'i as
"something with property x1 goes to something with
property x2 from..." but if we do I will prefer to use a
lujvo based on that that reverts it to the current meaning.
Btw, And? Underlying meaning my eye. English does intensions by nominal, Lojban by clause. They're different. Underlying meaning? We're making up the underlying meaning; it's all construct. That's not underlying meaning, that how English happens to do it. And even if all languages in the world say "I need a doctor" like that, rather than "I need that there be doctoring" (and I doubt it), why should that mean Lojban should?
Indeed, nothing stops Lojban from doing it both ways. But not necessarily with the same predicate. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail