WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


posts: 381

In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:01:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:


> I've always heard it as "Information wants to be free". I think
> "Data are capable" sounds horrible; it's a mass noun.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun
>
> -Robin
>From that wikipedia article:
The word "<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data">data</A>" is often used as a mass noun, especially by people who work
with computers. In formal writing it retains its original grammatical role as
the plural of "datum".

stevo





posts: 2388

The current discussion about this and the other
sumtcita sections reminds us of how tenuous is
the connection between those pages and reality.
A significant number of entries on each of the
sumtcita pages are not based upon actual usage
but upon (nowhere justified) applications of
(nowhere justified) principles derived the
unimaginative literalism which is pandemic in the
Lojban community. As a result, a number of
potentially useful expressions have been
preempted for usages that are unlikely ever to go
beyond the fabricated examples, while relations
which they might have accomodated may go without
Zipfy expressions.
The "principles" employed are a peculiar mix of
vague formulation (well, actually, they are
unformulated) and rigorous application, so that
the results are often as surprising as they are
useless. It would seem that a more honest and
ultimately useful approach would be to deal with
the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps, but
not forcing them into the molds devised for the
unused forms) and then acknowledge the
possibilities for further forms, with some
indication of the factors that might play a riole
in their uses (though just how would be left
open ). This seems more in line with the history
of these forms so far: relations with
"corresponding" brivla are fluid, as is the role
of converters and {nai} — what is used is what
is useful and related (however remotely) to the
forms already established.
Considerable work seems to have gone into these
pages and they may have added somewhat beyond
dealing with existing forms, but each item needs
an independent justification beyond fitting some
imagined pattern.


On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As a result, a number of
> potentially useful expressions have been
> preempted for usages that are unlikely ever to go
> beyond the fabricated examples, while relations
> which they might have accomodated may go without
> Zipfy expressions.

For example?

> It would seem that a more honest and
> ultimately useful approach would be to deal with
> the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps, but
> not forcing them into the molds devised for the
> unused forms) and then acknowledge the
> possibilities for further forms, with some
> indication of the factors that might play a riole
> in their uses (though just how would be left
> open ).

Which usages do you think have been ignored?

>From what I can see, people working on this have
made every effort to find examples from actual usage.
Many BAIs don't have any recorded usage, and
for many it is hard to come up with any sensible
use for them.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388

It is a little hard to answer these questions
since what is asked for it examples of usages
that have not yet occurred. The point is that a
number of expressions have been assigned to
usages that seem pretty likely not to occur
(witness both the uncertaintly of what they mean
exactly and the implausibility of the examples
that are fadged up) and thus are cut off from
being used should something come along that could
have used the expression. I don't generally know
what that something might be, only that it might
be ans that it is unlikely to be what has already
been assigned.


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > As a result, a number of
> > potentially useful expressions have been
> > preempted for usages that are unlikely ever
> to go
> > beyond the fabricated examples, while
> relations
> > which they might have accomodated may go
> without
> > Zipfy expressions.
>
> For example?
>
> > It would seem that a more honest and
> > ultimately useful approach would be to deal
> with
> > the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps,
> but
> > not forcing them into the molds devised for
> the
> > unused forms) and then acknowledge the
> > possibilities for further forms, with some
> > indication of the factors that might play a
> riole
> > in their uses (though just how would be left
> > open ).
>
> Which usages do you think have been ignored?

Wrong question. It is not that usages have been
ignored, but that non-usages have been considered
and sealed in place.

> >From what I can see, people working on this
> have
> made every effort to find examples from actual
> usage.
> Many BAIs don't have any recorded usage, and
> for many it is hard to come up with any
> sensible
> use for them.

My point would be that BAI that don't have usage
are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI.
They have no place in a dictionary, or, at most,
should be mentioned as potential forms with some
indication of where there usage might be expected
to lie — but obviously not exact specification
because we do not yet know what that is (if ever
anything). That is, the way to build a
dictionary — at this point in the language — is
to find and explain the forms actually used, not
to create and explain every possible form (an
impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with a
half-assed job).
Notice that, had the present program been carried
out from the beginning, a large number of the
established forms would not have the meaning they
do and a number of useful (and used) notions
would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I would
expect this pattern to continue when the program
is put in place starting after the beginning.


On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> My point would be that BAI that don't have usage
> are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI.

I'd be very happy to eliminate many, perhaps most, BAIs
from the language. I doubt very much anything like that
will happen though.

> They have no place in a dictionary, or, at most,
> should be mentioned as potential forms with some
> indication of where there usage might be expected
> to lie — but obviously not exact specification
> because we do not yet know what that is (if ever
> anything).

Given that they will all appear in the dictionary (we may
not like it but that's how it's going to be) that's exactly
what we are doing, i.e. providing indications of how we
expect them to be used. A lojban sentence is a much
better way of doing this than out of context English
keywords, in my opinion.

> That is, the way to build a
> dictionary — at this point in the language — is
> to find and explain the forms actually used, not
> to create and explain every possible form (an
> impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with a
> half-assed job).

That assumes that the language as actually used is
already good enough to be worth solidifying. I disagree
with that, I think most current usages are of relatively
poor quality and so a good deal of prescription is still
needed.

> Notice that, had the present program been carried
> out from the beginning, a large number of the
> established forms would not have the meaning they
> do and a number of useful (and used) notions
> would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I would
> expect this pattern to continue when the program
> is put in place starting after the beginning.

For example?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > My point would be that BAI that don't have
> usage
> > are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI.
>
> I'd be very happy to eliminate many, perhaps
> most, BAIs
> from the language. I doubt very much anything
> like that
> will happen though.

Relevance? I was ovbjecting to BAI that are not
iin the language to begin with (except in these
barely justifiable examples).

> > They have no place in a dictionary, or, at
> most,
> > should be mentioned as potential forms with
> some
> > indication of where there usage might be
> expected
> > to lie — but obviously not exact
> specification
> > because we do not yet know what that is (if
> ever
> > anything).
>
> Given that they will all appear in the
> dictionary (we may
> not like it but that's how it's going to be)
> that's exactly
> what we are doing, i.e. providing indications
> of how we
> expect them to be used. A lojban sentence is a
> much
> better way of doing this than out of context
> English
> keywords, in my opinion.

Well, I agree that keywords are generally not
very useful — even misleading in many cases --
but my protest is exqactly to including them in
the dictionary when they have never occrred in
the language. Will all the 100000 or so gismu be
included? What about all the cmavo in /x/? Or
the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It isn't
even that there are plausible cases that these
BAI forms ought to be used, in most instances.
And, of course, saying that the English sentence
gives some indication of how they are to be used
is only partly (and not the most useful part)
true; it tends in fact to fix the meaning rather
than open the range.

> > That is, the way to build a
> > dictionary — at this point in the language
> — is
> > to find and explain the forms actually used,
> not
> > to create and explain every possible form (an
> > impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with
> a
> > half-assed job).
>
> That assumes that the language as actually used
> is
> already good enough to be worth solidifying. I
> disagree
> with that, I think most current usages are of
> relatively
> poor quality and so a good deal of prescription
> is still
> needed.

I have no objection to clarifying — even
prescribing to some extent — the existing usage.
It does seem to me that some expressions have
been used inconsistently (or at least unclearly)
and inappropriately for their intended roles (as
subordinate clauses, for example, rather than
added places in the case of BAIs). But that is
very different from creating NEW usages out of
whole cloth (and based on nothing real at all).

> > Notice that, had the present program been
> carried
> > out from the beginning, a large number of the
> > established forms would not have the meaning
> they
> > do and a number of useful (and used) notions
> > would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I
> would
> > expect this pattern to continue when the
> program
> > is put in place starting after the beginning.
>
Well, we have discussed half a dozen cases over
the last little while: two that stick in mind
without searching are {du'u}, whose meaning is
not related by the "rules" to {djuno} (more to
{jinvi} or {krici} — which pair of words needs
some work, come to think of it) and {ri'anai},
whose meaning violates both {rinka} and {nai}, as
typically understood in this game of BAI
creation, and is not easily constructed in this
way from other brivla.



posts: 14214

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:53:38PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > My point would be that BAI that don't have usage are not BAI at
> > all but only potentially BAI.
>
> I'd be very happy to eliminate many, perhaps most, BAIs from the
> language. I doubt very much anything like that will happen though.

mi go'i

-Robin


On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I was ovbjecting to BAI that are not
> iin the language to begin with (except in these
> barely justifiable examples).

It is not clear what "being in the language" means to you.
All BAIs under discussion have been listed in the ma'oste
for years. None has been added since I joined Lojban
in '94.

> Well, I agree that keywords are generally not
> very useful — even misleading in many cases --
> but my protest is exqactly to including them in
> the dictionary when they have never occrred in
> the language. Will all the 100000 or so gismu be
> included?

Not sure what you mean by that. There are
1400 or so gismu in the language.

> What about all the cmavo in /x/?

I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get my way.

> Or
> the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It isn't
> even that there are plausible cases that these
> BAI forms ought to be used, in most instances.

But unfortunately the BAIs are not in experimental
space. They are a standard part of the official cmavo,
all of which need defining.

> I have no objection to clarifying — even
> prescribing to some extent — the existing usage.
> It does seem to me that some expressions have
> been used inconsistently (or at least unclearly)
> and inappropriately for their intended roles (as
> subordinate clauses, for example, rather than
> added places in the case of BAIs). But that is
> very different from creating NEW usages out of
> whole cloth (and based on nothing real at all).

We obviously have a different perception of the issue.


> Well, we have discussed half a dozen cases over
> the last little while: two that stick in mind
> without searching are {du'u}, whose meaning is
> not related by the "rules" to {djuno} (more to
> {jinvi} or {krici} — which pair of words needs
> some work, come to think of it)

Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm after. Should
{du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much wider?

>and {ri'anai},
> whose meaning violates both {rinka} and {nai}, as
> typically understood in this game of BAI
> creation, and is not easily constructed in this
> way from other brivla.

{to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular construction for
"not prevented by/in spite of".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I was ovbjecting to BAI that are not
> > iin the language to begin with (except in
> these
> > barely justifiable examples).
>
> It is not clear what "being in the language"
> means to you.
> All BAIs under discussion have been listed in
> the ma'oste
> for years. None has been added since I joined
> Lojban
> in '94.

How many of them have been used? That is the
most significant feature of being in the
language. There is also the matter of form,
whereby anything of a certain form could be in
the language in a certain role. So, given a BAI
in the language as a BAI, any SEBAI could be in
the language as a BAI. At some point — I don't
much care when, though it was after whenever my
paper list was made up — a number of BAI were
added on the basis — as far as I can tell — of
that second sense of being in the language. It
may be that some few of these have been used (my
list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to
establish the pattern). The rest seem merely to
be an excresence.

> > Well, I agree that keywords are generally not
> > very useful — even misleading in many cases
> --
> > but my protest is exqactly to including them
> in
> > the dictionary when they have never occrred
> in
> > the language. Will all the 100000 or so
> gismu be
> > included?
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. There are
> 1400 or so gismu in the language.

But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.

> > What about all the cmavo in /x/?
>
> I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get my
> way.

Butwhat about all the rest? This is a
particularly interesting case, because it brings
in forms whose meaning cannot even be guessed at
in advance, while I suppose there are some limits
(though I would hate to try to figure out what
they are) to what a SEBAI might mean, given the
BAI and perhaps the "related brivla."

> > Or
> > the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It
> isn't
> > even that there are plausible cases that
> these
> > BAI forms ought to be used, in most
> instances.
>
> But unfortunately the BAIs are not in
> experimental
> space. They are a standard part of the official
> cmavo,
> all of which need defining.

No, they need editing if they are already in, and
a note about how to get them back in if a need
for them arises,

> > I have no objection to clarifying — even
> > prescribing to some extent — the existing
> usage.
> > It does seem to me that some expressions have
> > been used inconsistently (or at least
> unclearly)
> > and inappropriately for their intended roles
> (as
> > subordinate clauses, for example, rather than
> > added places in the case of BAIs). But that
> is
> > very different from creating NEW usages out
> of
> > whole cloth (and based on nothing real at
> all).
>
> We obviously have a different perception of the
> issue.

Actually, we seem to me to agree rather well:
these things do not at present have any business
being presented as a part of actual Lojban,
worthy of a line in a dictionary.

>
> > Well, we have discussed half a dozen cases
> over
> > the last little while: two that stick in mind
> > without searching are {du'u}, whose meaning
> is
> > not related by the "rules" to {djuno} (more
> to
> > {jinvi} or {krici} — which pair of words
> needs
> > some work, come to think of it)
>
> Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm
> after. Should
> {du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much
> wider?
>
> >and {ri'anai},
> > whose meaning violates both {rinka} and
> {nai}, as
> > typically understood in this game of BAI
> > creation, and is not easily constructed in
> this
> > way from other brivla.
>
> {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular
> construction for
> "not prevented by/in spite of".
>
But the official line does not contain {to'e},
nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is
regular presupposes that there are rules, which
is not obviously the case.


On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> the language as a BAI. At some point — I don't
> much care when, though it was after whenever my
> paper list was made up — a number of BAI were
> added on the basis — as far as I can tell — of
> that second sense of being in the language. It
> may be that some few of these have been used (my
> list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to
> establish the pattern). The rest seem merely to
> be an excresence.

I agree most BAIs are an excresence, but we have to define them
because they are a part of the official language.

> > Not sure what you mean by that. There are
> > 1400 or so gismu in the language.
>
> But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.

Yes, but they are not official gismu.

> > But unfortunately the BAIs are not in
> > experimental
> > space. They are a standard part of the official
> > cmavo,
> > all of which need defining.
>
> No, they need editing if they are already in, and
> a note about how to get them back in if a need
> for them arises,

It's easier to add than to remove, and even adding anything
at this point is extremely difficult.

> > {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular
> > construction for
> > "not prevented by/in spite of".
> >
> But the official line does not contain {to'e},
> nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is
> regular presupposes that there are rules, which
> is not obviously the case.

It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or perhaps I'm just delusional? :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > the language as a BAI. At some point — I
> don't
> > much care when, though it was after whenever
> my
> > paper list was made up — a number of BAI
> were
> > added on the basis — as far as I can tell --
> of
> > that second sense of being in the language.
> It
> > may be that some few of these have been used
> (my
> > list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to
> > establish the pattern). The rest seem merely
> to
> > be an excresence.
>
> I agree most BAIs are an excresence, but we
> have to define them
> because they are a part of the official
> language.

I just dealt with that in another reply: if you
must say something about them, say that they have
no specified meaning but that it is likely that,
sho8uld they be used, the would mean something in
the general area of ---. And then admit there
are no examples.

> > > Not sure what you mean by that. There are
> > > 1400 or so gismu in the language.
> >
> > But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.
>
> Yes, but they are not official gismu.

Nor, in a sane world, would these excrescences be
offical BAI or whatever.

> > > But unfortunately the BAIs are not in
> > > experimental
> > > space. They are a standard part of the
> official
> > > cmavo,
> > > all of which need defining.
> >
> > No, they need editing if they are already in,
> and
> > a note about how to get them back in if a
> need
> > for them arises,
>
> It's easier to add than to remove, and even
> adding anything
> at this point is extremely difficult.

You don't have a delete key? But I have
suggested a work-around (which corresponds with
what I suggested earlier, namely that these
potential words be listed and a general statement
made about likely areas of meaning in each case
-- or better in a general statement).


> > > {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular
> > > construction for
> > > "not prevented by/in spite of".
> > >
> > But the official line does not contain
> {to'e},
> > nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it
> is
> > regular presupposes that there are rules,
> which
> > is not obviously the case.
>
> It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or
> perhaps I'm just delusional? :-)
>
Every rule that I have seen you propose has clear
exceptions among the oldest level of forms. Even
your revised "despite," if you really mean it to
be regular, runs afoul of other cases from the
same stratum or earlier. (it requires that {nai}
scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases
{nai} has to scope only over the attached phrase).


On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's easier to add than to remove, and even
> > adding anything
> > at this point is extremely difficult.
>
> You don't have a delete key?

You singular? No, I don't unfortunately (or fortunately,
depending on your point of view.) You plural, maybe
there is one but very hard to press.

> But I have
> suggested a work-around (which corresponds with
> what I suggested earlier, namely that these
> potential words be listed and a general statement
> made about likely areas of meaning in each case
> — or better in a general statement).

They are pretty well defined, even if rather useless.

> > It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or
> > perhaps I'm just delusional? :-)
> >
> Every rule that I have seen you propose has clear
> exceptions among the oldest level of forms.

None of the rules are exceptionless, but they are quite
extensive.

> Even
> your revised "despite," if you really mean it to
> be regular, runs afoul of other cases from the
> same stratum or earlier. (it requires that {nai}
> scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases
> {nai} has to scope only over the attached phrase).

Yes, that's unfortunate, but better than nothing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 162

Chiming in with a rare re fepni:

John E Clifford wrote:
>>It is not clear what "being in the language"
>>means to you.
>>All BAIs under discussion have been listed in
>>the ma'oste
>>for years. None has been added since I joined
>>Lojban
>>in '94.
>
> How many of them have been used?

Not a valid argument. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the
cmavo have never been used, in part because the few people doing most of
the writing over the years thought that the definitions in the cmavo
list were inadequate.

A brief history of BAI

Recognizing that JCB had a bunch of different things - including case
tags, causals, and modals, we decided to treat them all as one
interchangeable selma'o now called BAI. The causals and modals among
them had a history of being convertible using SE, TE, etc, and the
causals of being negated (leading to the
because/therefore/despite/nevertheless set of causals).

Because they were grammatically convertible, we looked at what
conversion and negation would do for other BAI members. I believe this
was considered at the time of the negation research you did. I noticed
that several BAIs could be used in this way, especially the one based on
jalge, which was a kind of backwards causal.

People complained (this might have been Nick, and Cowan too) that while
each BAI was nominally associated with some selbri and picked out one
place of that selbri, it was unpredictable which place was the one of
most interest. Some BAIs had several places useful while others seemed
to be either less useful or at least not corresponding to some English
equivalent.

It was then proposed that all BAIs be oriented in the same way as the
selbri they were derived from and take the meaning rigidly from that
selbri. We decided that in <BAI sumti>, the sumti had the semantics
of x1 of the source selbri, SE BAI the x2, etc., making the memorization
easier.

Since we had a pretty fixed set of selbri, I attempted to figure out the
plausible meanings of all the conversions of all the BAIs based on this
rigid association of selbri. I believe that Cowan and Nora reviewed
this list. We recognized that some of these conversions would be
relatively useless, but we weren't about to constrain things because
right about that time, the evolution was tending the other way, and
people were using FIhO+gismu to create all sorts of ad-hoc tags.

We baselined the cmavo list in 1994 with all of the conversion compounds
listed.

> That is the
> most significant feature of being in the
> language.

Since "usage" has been a matter of significance for only a small number
of people until shortly before byfy got started, I have contended all
along that there could not possibly have been enough usage to decide
whether something is "useful" or not.

> So, given a BAI
> in the language as a BAI, any SEBAI could be in
> the language as a BAI. At some point — I don't
> much care when, though it was after whenever my
> paper list was made up — a number of BAI were
> added on the basis — as far as I can tell — of
> that second sense of being in the language. It
> may be that some few of these have been used (my
> list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to
> establish the pattern). The rest seem merely to
> be an excresence.

For each of the BAI in the language, there is at least one place that we
could see a need for. The regularizing of BAI semantics means that all
the other options are permissible, but it is precisely because there has
NOT been a good definition for these that we cannot judge based on
usage. We need a 5 year period of usage AFTER we have good definitions.


>>>but my protest is exqactly to including them in
>>>the dictionary when they have never occrredin
>>>the language. Will all the 100000 or so gismu be
>>>included?
>>
>>Not sure what you mean by that. There are
>>1400 or so gismu in the language.
>
> But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.

The list of gismu, just as the list of BAI, has been baselined for over
10 years.

It takes an act of byfy to delete something from the baseline just as it
would take such an act to add to the baseline.

I oppose any argument for deletion based on usage when usage is
dependent on having good definitions.


>>>What about all the cmavo in /x/?
>>
>>I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get my
>>way.
>
> Butwhat about all the rest? This is a
> particularly interesting case, because it brings
> in forms whose meaning cannot even be guessed at
> in advance, while I suppose there are some limits
> (though I would hate to try to figure out what
> they are) to what a SEBAI might mean, given the
> BAI and perhaps the "related brivla."

The XVV cmavo were by the baseline experimental. It is permissible for
the byfy to change the baseline and assign those XVV to specific things
that have been experimented with, but I would oppose doing that until
all of the existing things have been defined. One option proposed from
the beginning would be, when there is controversy between two different
semantic interpretations of some cmavo, that the least controversial
solution would be to split the cmavo into two. That was specifically
considered during the gadri debate.

Until we have considered all such controversies (i.e. the first cut of
all selma'o), we should not be assigning XVVs except to resolve
controversies. After that, with the wide acceptance of using XVVV space
for experimental use, I will favor the assignment of all remaining XVVs
to the most used experimentals that the byfy thinks are worthy of
including in the official language.

Again, I do not favor any deletions based on non-usage. I will
grudgingly accept a deletion of a baselined cmavo if it seems impossible
to reach a consensus on what it means AND there is no usage history.
But again that is a decision that should not be made until after all
that can be defined have been defined.

>>>Or
>>>the as yet unused CV'V'VV? And so on. It
>>
>>isn't
>>
>>>even that there are plausible cases that
>>
>>these
>>
>>>BAI forms ought to be used, in most
>>
>>instances.

The CVVV forms are reserved as experimentals for the indefinite future,
and I would prefer to use up all the XVVs before officially defining any
CVVVs.

>>But unfortunately the BAIs are not in
>>experimental
>>space. They are a standard part of the official
>>cmavo,
>>all of which need defining.
>
> No, they need editing if they are already in, and
> a note about how to get them back in if a need
> for them arises,

That is not the sort of decision that the byfy should be making yet.


> Actually, we seem to me to agree rather well:
> these things do not at present have any business
> being presented as a part of actual Lojban,
> worthy of a line in a dictionary.

They are part of the baselined language. It takes a formal vote on each
one to delete it, and I would protest such votes taking place in the
middle of the quite different task that the byfy is now engaged in of
trying to define the words.

For BAI, we should not need actual usage to define what the conversions
mean - that was precisely the argument that was made for regularizing
them. We need the examples before there will be usage.

And in the case of BAI, I think usage patterns here will be strongly
correlated with the native language of the speaker, so deleting things
based on nonusage when the language is dominated by English speakers and
one Spanish speaker strikes me as asking for bias.

>>Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm
>>after. Should
>>{du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much
>>wider?

The baseline definition bases it on djuno. If someone wants to propose
a lujvo compound of djuno I could probably accept it, but I think we
need BAI for all of the djuno places.

>>>and {ri'anai},
>>>whose meaning violates both {rinka} and
>>{nai}, as
>>
>>>typically understood in this game of BAI
>>>creation, and is not easily constructed in
>>this
>>
>>>way from other brivla.

It seems plausible without checking that the causals may currently not
be aligned with the other BAIs. They were included in the language
based on JCB, and merged with the others before people decided that they
wanted systematic meanings, and I may have required retention of the
old meaning for those as a condition for systematizing the others.
Since I suspect that the causals have NOT been used as much as I
expected based on the importance that they were in the TLI era, I would
accept a general realignment of the causals so that they match the other
BAIs.

However, if this means that we do NOT have the foursomes of
because/therefore/despite/nevertheless, then I will insist that a
solution be found for representing all 4 of those for each of the
causal-like BAI members.

> But the official line does not contain {to'e},
> nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is
> regular presupposes that there are rules, which
> is not obviously the case.

The causals had rules, but they may not be consistent with the evolved
gismu that they are based on (some of which were changed due to
sumti-raising concerns), and changes to negation might also render them
less fitting to the pattern.

I won't suggest the solution since I have not followed the debate and
can't without checking know the currently favored ways of negating a BAI
and the semantic import thereof (i.e. na'ebai vs bainai vs na bai). You
pc should be aware more than most of the history of JCBs causals that
led to the semantic foursome being associated with conversion and
negation of each causal. Just make sure that the result remains
consistent, and capable of expressing all the stuff that JCB had in mind.

lojbab


Robert LeChevalier scripsit:

> People complained (this might have been Nick, and Cowan too) that while
> each BAI was nominally associated with some selbri and picked out one
> place of that selbri, it was unpredictable which place was the one of
> most interest. Some BAIs had several places useful while others seemed
> to be either less useful or at least not corresponding to some English
> equivalent.

No, this was before my time and therefore before Nick's time too. It must
have been some of the early students.

--
In my last lifetime, John Cowan
I believed in reincarnation; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in this lifetime, jcowan@reutershealth.com
I don't. --Thiagi http://www.reutershealth.com


posts: 2388


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > It's easier to add than to remove, and even
> > > adding anything
> > > at this point is extremely difficult.
> >
> > You don't have a delete key?
>
> You singular? No, I don't unfortunately (or
> fortunately,
> depending on your point of view.) You plural,
> maybe
> there is one but very hard to press.

I meant this literally: if you start with a list
of purported tags on your screen, you can get rid
of a lot just by highlighting and hitting delete.
No one would notice (except fussbudgets who
compare lists) since no one has used the deleted
items or shown any inclination to. But leaving
them with a statement about their status is
probably better.

> > But I have
> > suggested a work-around (which corresponds
> with
> > what I suggested earlier, namely that these
> > potential words be listed and a general
> statement
> > made about likely areas of meaning in each
> case
> > — or better in a general statement).
>
> They are pretty well defined, even if rather
> useless.

But the definitions given preempt their future
use, where they might have served for some real
need and now are stuck with a formulaic but
useless sense. (People manage to ride over this
kind of problem all the time, but it would be a
courtesy not to stick them with it in the first
place.)

> > > It is obvious to me that there are rules.
> Or
> > > perhaps I'm just delusional? :-)
> > >
> > Every rule that I have seen you propose has
> clear
> > exceptions among the oldest level of forms.
>
> None of the rules are exceptionless, but they
> are quite extensive.

Yes, things tend to turn out in a certain way,
just as lujvo tend to fall into a small number
(say two) of patterns. But that hardly is a
basis for claiming that future items will always
fall into the predominant pattern, as the
definitions given here do. Let actual usage
decide; the remarks should give the sort of hints
that might lead one to find a word that would
work for a notion that one has in mind but ought
not preclude the use of a rare — even so-far
unexemplified — pattern.

> > Even
> > your revised "despite," if you really mean it
> to
> > be regular, runs afoul of other cases from
> the
> > same stratum or earlier. (it requires that
> {nai}
> > scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases
> > {nai} has to scope only over the attached
> phrase).
>
> Yes, that's unfortunate, but better than
> nothing.

But so, of course, is the original listed form
{ri'a nai} (indeed, it is better yet) even though
its justification is not just in terms of
patterns of connections between a BAI and some
brivla, but rather in terms of general linguistic
principles applied to such a connection (but note
that even the connection is not actually
necessary for finding uses for these forms,
merely — as CLL says somewhere — suggestive, a
mnemonic, not a definition).


On 5/17/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> But the definitions given preempt their future
> use, where they might have served for some real
> need and now are stuck with a formulaic but
> useless sense. (People manage to ride over this
> kind of problem all the time, but it would be a
> courtesy not to stick them with it in the first
> place.)

I wish you'd come up with at least one suggestive
example of how this might happen. All this theoretical
speculation of what might be the case if we don't do
what we are doing is not very convincing.

> > None of the rules are exceptionless, but they
> > are quite extensive.
>
> Yes, things tend to turn out in a certain way,
> just as lujvo tend to fall into a small number
> (say two) of patterns. But that hardly is a
> basis for claiming that future items will always
> fall into the predominant pattern, as the
> definitions given here do.

For example, which definition do you find overly restrictive?

> Let actual usage
> decide; the remarks should give the sort of hints
> that might lead one to find a word that would
> work for a notion that one has in mind but ought
> not preclude the use of a rare — even so-far
> unexemplified — pattern.

For example?

> But so, of course, is the original listed form
> {ri'a nai} (indeed, it is better yet) even though
> its justification is not just in terms of
> patterns of connections between a BAI and some
> brivla, but rather in terms of general linguistic
> principles applied to such a connection (but note
> that even the connection is not actually
> necessary for finding uses for these forms,
> merely — as CLL says somewhere — suggestive, a
> mnemonic, not a definition).

I prefer compositionality to suggestive mnemonics
whenever possible, and in this case it is possible, so
my preference goes to {to'e ri'a nai} despite the two
additional syllables.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388



> Chiming in with a rare re fepni:
>
> John E Clifford wrote:
> >>It is not clear what "being in the language"
> >>means to you.
> >>All BAIs under discussion have been listed in
> >>the ma'oste
> >>for years. None has been added since I joined
> >>Lojban
> >>in '94.
> >
> > How many of them have been used?
>
> Not a valid argument. I wouldn't be surprised
> if more than half the
> cmavo have never been used, in part because the
> few people doing most of
> the writing over the years thought that the
> definitions in the cmavo
> list were inadequate.

An argument for either editing the list or, at
best, shifting to the "No usage, but a probable
meaning somewhere in the area of ..." This will
work less well with things that are not — as BAI
-- vaguely linked to something with an
established meaning, but still somethin useful
can usually be said, without binding a future
user to that if he needs a new usage.

> A brief history of BAI
>
> Recognizing that JCB had a bunch of different
> things - including case
> tags, causals, and modals, we decided to treat
> them all as one
> interchangeable selma'o now called BAI. The
> causals and modals among
> them had a history of being convertible using
> SE, TE, etc, and the
> causals of being negated (leading to the
> because/therefore/despite/nevertheless set of
> causals).
>
> Because they were grammatically convertible, we
> looked at what
> conversion and negation would do for other BAI
> members. I believe this
> was considered at the time of the negation
> research you did. I noticed
> that several BAIs could be used in this way,
> especially the one based on
> jalge, which was a kind of backwards causal.
>
> People complained (this might have been Nick,
> and Cowan too) that while
> each BAI was nominally associated with some
> selbri and picked out one
> place of that selbri, it was unpredictable
> which place was the one of
> most interest. Some BAIs had several places
> useful while others seemed
> to be either less useful or at least not
> corresponding to some English
> equivalent.
>
> It was then proposed that all BAIs be oriented
> in the same way as the
> selbri they were derived from and take the
> meaning rigidly from that
> selbri. We decided that in <BAI sumti>, the
> sumti had the semantics
> of x1 of the source selbri, SE BAI the x2,
> etc., making the memorization
> easier.
>
> Since we had a pretty fixed set of selbri, I
> attempted to figure out the
> plausible meanings of all the conversions of
> all the BAIs based on this
> rigid association of selbri. I believe that
> Cowan and Nora reviewed
> this list. We recognized that some of these
> conversions would be
> relatively useless, but we weren't about to
> constrain things because
> right about that time, the evolution was
> tending the other way, and
> people were using FIhO+gismu to create all
> sorts of ad-hoc tags.
>
> We baselined the cmavo list in 1994 with all of
> the conversion compounds
> listed.

In other words, this list was indeed generated
mechanically, with minimal regard for possible
meaning (indeed, despite evidence that some
proposals were junk). That was what it looked
like but I am still sorry to hear that it was so.
Given that history and the fact that we have made
it difficult to do anything more about it than a
shift from "definitions" to suggestions for
potential use, I suggest we take the latter
aproach.

> > That is the
> > most significant feature of being in the
> > language.
>
> Since "usage" has been a matter of significance
> for only a small number
> of people until shortly before byfy got
> started, I have contended all
> along that there could not possibly have been
> enough usage to decide
> whether something is "useful" or not.

Hey, this is a dictionary being constructed here,
not a word list laid down from on high
(presumably), so usage always counts. But, since
it inherits some of an unfortunate word list, the
proper thing to do is include the unused items
with a note about the area of their use but
without nailiing that usage down so as to
preclude other less direct uses as the first to
come forth.

> > So, given a BAI
> > in the language as a BAI, any SEBAI could be
> in
> > the language as a BAI. At some point — I
> don't
> > much care when, though it was after whenever
> my
> > paper list was made up — a number of BAI
> were
> > added on the basis — as far as I can tell --
> of
> > that second sense of being in the language.
> It
> > may be that some few of these have been used
> (my
> > list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to
> > establish the pattern). The rest seem merely
> to
> > be an excresence.
>
> For each of the BAI in the language, there is
> at least one place that we
> could see a need for. The regularizing of BAI
> semantics means that all
> the other options are permissible, but it is
> precisely because there has
> NOT been a good definition for these that we
> cannot judge based on
> usage. We need a 5 year period of usage AFTER
> we have good definitions.
>
This is bass ackwards in the extreme: you can't
have a good definition until you have usage.
Witness what is happening even with the
prescriptive definitions of words that are used:
the meanings are sliding to fit needs (at least
in the direction of clarity if not farther).
This is one of the reasons why BPFK esists after
all.

> >>>but my protest is exqactly to including them
> in
> >>>the dictionary when they have never
> occrredin
> >>>the language. Will all the 100000 or so
> gismu be
> >>>included?
> >>
> >>Not sure what you mean by that. There are
> >>1400 or so gismu in the language.
> >
> > But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.
>
> The list of gismu, just as the list of BAI, has
> been baselined for over
> 10 years.

Relevance? The point was that if we are going to
list all of the permutations on BAI allowed by
some rule and then dream up meanings for them,
why not do so with other forms generated by some
rule: all the potential gismu or long-form or XVV
cmavo or... ? It was meant to be a reduction to
absurdity, to which the reply "But there is a
closed list of gismu" does not answer.

> It takes an act of byfy to delete something
> from the baseline just as it
> would take such an act to add to the baseline.
>
> I oppose any argument for deletion based on
> usage when usage is
> dependent on having good definitions.

This is again just wrong way round. This
implies, for example, that the only lujvo that
can be used are those that have already been
defined, for only those have definitions. But
their definitions (usually) came from someone
using them, not use after definition.

>
> >>>What about all the cmavo in /x/?
> >>
> >>I would include {xa'o}, but I doubt I'll get
> my
> >>way.
> >
> > Butwhat about all the rest? This is a
> > particularly interesting case, because it
> brings
> > in forms whose meaning cannot even be guessed
> at
> > in advance, while I suppose there are some
> limits
> > (though I would hate to try to figure out
> what
> > they are) to what a SEBAI might mean, given
> the
> > BAI and perhaps the "related brivla."
>
> The XVV cmavo were by the baseline
> experimental. It is permissible for
> the byfy to change the baseline and assign
> those XVV to specific things
> that have been experimented with, but I would
> oppose doing that until
> all of the existing things have been defined.
> One option proposed from
> the beginning would be, when there is
> controversy between two different
> semantic interpretations of some cmavo, that
> the least controversial
> solution would be to split the cmavo into two.
> That was specifically
> considered during the gadri debate.

See above.

(Snip irrelevant harangue about XVV etc.)

>>>But unfortunately the BAIs are not in
>>>experimental
>>>space. They are a standard part of the
official
>>>cmavo,
>>>all of which need defining.
>>
>> No, they need editing if they are already in,
>>and
>> a note about how to get them back in if a need
>> for them arises,

>That is not the sort of decision that the byfy
>should be making yet.

Well, OK; I have suggested an alternative
(indeed, one I always had in mind — even in
words, I think).

>> Actually, we seem to me to agree rather well:
>> these things do not at present have any
>business
>> being presented as a part of actual Lojban,
>> worthy of a line in a dictionary.

>They are part of the baselined language. It
>takes a formal vote on each
>one to delete it, and I would protest such votes
>taking place in the
>middle of the quite different task that the byfy
>is now engaged in of
>trying to define the words.

See above.

>For BAI, we should not need actual usage to
>define what the conversions
>mean - that was precisely the argument that was
>made for regularizing
>them. We need the examples before there will be
>usage.

This presupposes a connection between BAI and
gismu which is not justified by the actual cases
nor argued for in any place I can find (and is
explicitly denied a couple of times). If it was
in peoples' minds when this expansion project was
carried out, it did not guide them well in cases
of actual use and led to absurdities in the
phantasmic cases.


>And in the case of BAI, I think usage patterns
>here will be strongly
>correlated with the native language of the
>speaker, so deleting things
>based on nonusage when the language is dominated
>by English speakers and
>one Spanish speaker strikes me as asking for
>bias.

An interesting notion, which should be looked at.
It is true that native usage does affect much of
Lojban usage, so it may well here. I don't see
any evidence of it, but then, it's my native
language that is being imitated.

>>>Well, that's the kind of clarification I'm
>>>after. Should
>>>{du'o} be {fi'o djuno}, or something much
>>>wider?

>The baseline definition bases it on djuno. If
>someone wants to propose
>a lujvo compound of djuno I could probably
accept >it, but I think we
>need BAI for all of the djuno places.

Usage — indeed even the official defintion --
separates it from {djuno} and ties it with
something more like {jinvi}; theusage with
{djuno} would be appreciably less useful.

>>>>and {ri'anai},
>>>>whose meaning violates both {rinka} and
>>>{nai}, as
>>>
>>>>typically understood in this game of BAI
>>>creation, and is not easily constructed in
>>>this
>>>
>>>>way from other brivla.

>It seems plausible without checking that the
>causals may currently not
>be aligned with the other BAIs. They were
>included in the language
>based on JCB, and merged with the others before
>people decided that they
>wanted systematic meanings, and I may have
>required retention of the
>old meaning for those as a condition for
>systematizing the others.
>Since I suspect that the causals have NOT been
>used as much as I
>expected based on the importance that they were
>in the TLI era, I would
>accept a general realignment of the causals so
>that they match the other
>BAIs.

Actually, since the causals by and large make
sense and many of the others do not, I would
expect that careful usage would shift things the
other way. But since we are now allowing that
usage will affect definitions (jumping from the
17th to the 2oth century in two paragraphs), why
not let it go all the way and leave the lot of
those not yet used to be decided by usage (within
broad limits of course — I see no way of getting
rid of the tendency to associate BAI with gismu
in some way).

>However, if this means that we do NOT have the
>foursomes of
>because/therefore/despite/nevertheless, then I
>will insist that a
>solution be found for representing all 4 of
those >for each of the
>causal-like BAI members.

I can't check because it is hard to figure out
what keywords muight be used for some of these,
but it seems likely that all are there, since
they were already in Loglan.

>> But the official line does not contain {to'e},
>> nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it
is
>> regular presupposes that there are rules,
which
>> is not obviously the case.

>The causals had rules, but they may not be
>consistent with the evolved
>gismu that they are based on (some of which were
>changed due to
>sumti-raising concerns), and changes to negation
>might also render them
>less fitting to the pattern.
This being the case, it seems a bad idea to have
built a mass of other examples on the rules from
them-- which rules they do not themselves follow.
But the point remains that the ruled definitions
destroy the possibility for using BAI in useful
ways if the useful way does not happen to fit the
rule. To be sure, the likelihood is that the
ruled definition will eventually be ignored if
the usage is useful, but why set up the
roadblocks to begin with.

>I won't suggest the solution since I have not
>followed the debate and
>can't without checking know the currently
favored >ways of negating a BAI
>and the semantic import thereof (i.e. na'ebai vs
>bainai vs na bai). You
>pc should be aware more than most of the history
>of JCBs causals that
>led to the semantic foursome being associated
>with conversion and
>negation of each causal. Just make sure that
the >result remains
>consistent, and capable of expressing all the
>stuff that JCB had in mind.

The causal cases are set up and used, so are not
the problem (unless some of them got lost in the
"systematic" rewriting); the problem is forcing
these patterns on everything else, whether they
produce useful results or not and regardless of
whether they bury useful meanings or not. It may
be, of course, that every one of the so far
unused expressions that ever does get used is
used for exactly what the system predicted and is
so used not because of prediction but because of
the internal logic of the usage, but that still
does not make the predictions justified
prescriptions.


posts: 2388


> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > But the definitions given preempt their
> future
> > use, where they might have served for some
> real
> > need and now are stuck with a formulaic but
> > useless sense. (People manage to ride over
> this
> > kind of problem all the time, but it would be
> a
> > courtesy not to stick them with it in the
> first
> > place.)
>
> I wish you'd come up with at least one
> suggestive
> example of how this might happen. All this
> theoretical
> speculation of what might be the case if we
> don't do
> what we are doing is not very convincing.

"Give me an example of a non-existent object or I
won't be convinced" is not a very interesting
comment. I have cited cases from the past where
the rules being in force would have prevented a
useful usage; I extrapolate from that.

> > > None of the rules are exceptionless, but
> they
> > > are quite extensive.
> >
> > Yes, things tend to turn out in a certain
> way,
> > just as lujvo tend to fall into a small
> number
> > (say two) of patterns. But that hardly is a
> > basis for claiming that future items will
> always
> > fall into the predominant pattern, as the
> > definitions given here do.
>
> For example, which definition do you find
> overly restrictive?
I would say any one that says the meaning of
this form has to be such and such, based on some
rule rather than some usage. Examples seem to be
too numerous to list: all cases with made up
examples would do in principle.


> > Let actual usage
> > decide; the remarks should give the sort of
> hints
> > that might lead one to find a word that would
> > work for a notion that one has in mind but
> ought
> > not preclude the use of a rare — even so-far
> > unexemplified — pattern.
>
> For example?

Well, back to the already cited past cases. I
have said all that I need about the demand for a
nonexistent object.

> > But so, of course, is the original listed
> form
> > {ri'a nai} (indeed, it is better yet) even
> though
> > its justification is not just in terms of
> > patterns of connections between a BAI and
> some
> > brivla, but rather in terms of general
> linguistic
> > principles applied to such a connection (but
> note
> > that even the connection is not actually
> > necessary for finding uses for these forms,
> > merely — as CLL says somewhere --
> suggestive, a
> > mnemonic, not a definition).
>
> I prefer compositionality to suggestive
> mnemonics
> whenever possible, and in this case it is
> possible, so
> my preference goes to {to'e ri'a nai} despite
> the two
> additional syllables.

Well, we have different tastes at this point; I
prefer the possibility of creativity to the
strict requirement that all be done by rules. It
does not seem to me appropriate for the grammar
to take sides on this, hence my suggestion that
the unused forms be declared undetermine but als
show which way the predictions of their use lie.



On 5/17/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Give me an example of a non-existent object or I
> won't be convinced" is not a very interesting
> comment.

It's not a comment, just a request. I have been using Lojban
for ten years and I don't recall any instance during this time
of any BAI acquiring an interesting new meaning, so I'd like
to know what kind of possible extensions you have in mind.

> I have cited cases from the past where
> the rules being in force would have prevented a
> useful usage; I extrapolate from that.

What rules do you think are in force? People who use {du'o}
for "according to" are convinced that that's what {djuno}
permits them to do, so they are using it for what they take
{fi'o djuno} to be. Either that, or they just looked up the
keyword in the ma'oste. Another example, {ti'u} is glossed
"at time ..." so people sometimes use it to tag any time
indicaton, as if it was {ca}, {ti'u le crisa} for example. But
{ti'u} is supposed to be {fi'o tcika}, for a clock time. The
English keyword is misleading. Is it desirable to let the
meaning of {ti'u} drift based on its English keyword?
Should we not insist that {ti'u} is {fi'o tcika}?

> Well, we have different tastes at this point; I
> prefer the possibility of creativity to the
> strict requirement that all be done by rules.

I'm all in favour of creativity. It usually requires more
creativity to do things by the rules than to come up with
ad hoc solutions to problems. Using BAIs for non-BAI functions,
(like the sometime proposed function for pa'aku) is not, in
my view, a desirable outcome. Shifting the meaning of some
BAI from {fi'o broda} to some other {fi'o brode} is perfectly
acceptable to me, preferrably if done consciously, so for example
that you use {du'o} knowing you mean {fi'o jinvi}, and not really
meaning {fi'o jinvi} but thinking you mean {fi'o djuno}.

> It
> does not seem to me appropriate for the grammar
> to take sides on this, hence my suggestion that
> the unused forms be declared undetermine but als
> show which way the predictions of their use lie.

It's hard to see how that differs from what is being done
now.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > "Give me an example of a non-existent object
> or I
> > won't be convinced" is not a very interesting
> > comment.
>
> It's not a comment, just a request. I have been
> using Lojban
> for ten years and I don't recall any instance
> during this time
> of any BAI acquiring an interesting new
> meaning, so I'd like
> to know what kind of possible extensions you
> have in mind.

It was an inappropriate request because of its
inherent contradiction, so I called it a comment
to keep within the bounds of cooperative
discourse. I suppose that you want me to
speculate on what might be the case, but even
that is not likely to be fruitful, given the lack
of casesin recent history that you point to
(although it is not clear how you can tell that
the forms don't have interesting new meanings if
the basic meanings they are to have are not yet
-- or are only just now — decided; perhaps the
meaning that they have actually been used to have
are significant variations on the programmatic
ones, had those been specified before).

> > I have cited cases from the past where
> > the rules being in force would have prevented
> a
> > useful usage; I extrapolate from that.
>
> What rules do you think are in force? People
> who use {du'o}
> for "according to" are convinced that that's
> what {djuno}
> permits them to do, so they are using it for
> what they take
> {fi'o djuno} to be. Either that, or they just
> looked up the
> keyword in the ma'oste. Another example, {ti'u}
> is glossed
> "at time ..." so people sometimes use it to tag
> any time
> indicaton, as if it was {ca}, {ti'u le crisa}
> for example. But
> {ti'u} is supposed to be {fi'o tcika}, for a
> clock time. The
> English keyword is misleading. Is it desirable
> to let the
> meaning of {ti'u} drift based on its English
> keyword?
> Should we not insist that {ti'u} is {fi'o
> tcika}?

The fact that the uses of {ti'u} can be traced to
the keyword is, of course, damning because
keywords have such a history of misleading
people. But it must be said that in this case
the keyword does not seem to me to point in the
direction folks have gone with it (which for me
would have to be "at the time of"). But then, I
learned {ca} before {ti'u} (which I admit I have
never used)and so did not have to look for an
expression to say "at the time of." On the
other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead of
{ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it means
that; that is what dictionary writing is all
about. The fact that it is redundant in that
meaning — and that the clock time meaning is
harder to do using {ca} and thus that another
form for it is useful — does not change the
fact. However, it does give a reason for our
doing what we can to change usage back to the way
it was envisioned to be. The history of success
in that endeavor is not encouraging to be sure
(Gresham's Law); I have given up on
"disinterested," for example (even the New York
Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though I
don't (I think) use it myself. With Lojban we
have a bit more power, since we can edit what
actually goes into the corpus, if we want, and
thus guarantee that the official exemplars
conform to our ideas. But in the cases where the
usage actually fills a need — and the offical
line does not — then the editor and the
dictionary writer would be wisest to follow
usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a
nai}, actually existed, apparently, before the
(perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one (well,
you in fact have, so I'd better not say this)
would go back to change them now. I suppose that
-- as often happens, I've noticed — {djuno} gets
mixed up with English "know," which can be used
for firm belief ({birti} say or {jinvi} or
{krici} — which pile needs some looking at) as
well as for strict knowledge, and this carries
over to {du'u}, aided by the fact that {du'u}
according to the rules gives an essentially
useless item and none of the other gismu involved
has an associated BAI, leaving a useful (though,
I think, otherwise better dealt with)notion
without a direct expression.

> > Well, we have different tastes at this point;
> I
> > prefer the possibility of creativity to the
> > strict requirement that all be done by rules.
>
>
> I'm all in favour of creativity. It usually
> requires more
> creativity to do things by the rules than to
> come up with
> ad hoc solutions to problems.

This claim strikes me as self-contradictory; that
is, doing things by the rules is the definitional
opposite of being creative. What I suspect you
mean you prefer when we get down to cases is
"playing with the rules and the possible
conflicts among different rules to get something
that is creatively satisfying and yet can be made
to look rule governed." I like that and that is,
in effect, what I am recommending we open the
door to officially: here is a form, here is the
area wherein we would expect the meaning of it
to lie, ow find some useful meaning that fits
there and is not already better covered.

> Using BAIs for
> non-BAI functions,
> (like the sometime proposed function for
> pa'aku) is not, in
> my view, a desirable outcome.

I don't remember this case; could you elaborate.
Many of the existing BAI seem to me to be cases
of this sort, but now so established as to be
unchangable and even to serve as models for other
violations ({du'o} is one, for example).

> Shifting the
> meaning of some
> BAI from {fi'o broda} to some other {fi'o
> brode} is perfectly
> acceptable to me, preferrably if done
> consciously, so for example
> that you use {du'o} knowing you mean {fi'o
> jinvi}, and not really
> meaning {fi'o jinvi} but thinking you mean
> {fi'o djuno}.

Good, though I would prefer that new usages not
recover areas already taken care of, at least for
a while yet.

> > It
> > does not seem to me appropriate for the
> grammar
> > to take sides on this, hence my suggestion
> that
> > the unused forms be declared undetermine but
> als
> > show which way the predictions of their use
> lie.
>
> It's hard to see how that differs from what is
> being done
> now.

Well, you may take the definitions and examples
offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I fear
that most people take them as carved in at least
something more enduring than Jell-o, to the
detriment of creativity in this area.


On 5/17/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> (although it is not clear how you can tell that
> the forms don't have interesting new meanings if
> the basic meanings they are to have are not yet
> — or are only just now — decided; perhaps the
> meaning that they have actually been used to have
> are significant variations on the programmatic
> ones, had those been specified before).

Huh? The programmatic meanings have for the most part
been in place for more than ten years, they are not being
decided now.

> On the
> other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead of
> {ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it means
> that; that is what dictionary writing is all
> about.

But that is not what the BPFK is about. We are
defining prescriptively, not recording the mostly
erroneous use of Lojban by non-fluent speakers
which will for the most part readily admit that their
usage is erroneous when the mistake is pointed out.

> The history of success
> in that endeavor is not encouraging to be sure
> (Gresham's Law); I have given up on
> "disinterested," for example (even the New York
> Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though I
> don't (I think) use it myself.

dictionary.com has a note on that:
"... Oddly enough, "not interested" is the oldest sense
of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense
became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a
revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its
resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error."

> But in the cases where the
> usage actually fills a need — and the offical
> line does not — then the editor and the
> dictionary writer would be wisest to follow
> usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a
> nai}, actually existed, apparently, before the
> (perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one (well,
> you in fact have, so I'd better not say this)
> would go back to change them now.

I wouldn't have a problem with defining {du'o} as {fi'o jinvi}.
I do have some problem with defining it as {fi'o djuno} and
keywording it as "according to".

{ri'a nai} is a separate issue, using {nai} to mark duals,
which is not its usual function. I just prefer regularity there.


> > Using BAIs for
> > non-BAI functions,
> > (like the sometime proposed function for
> > pa'aku) is not, in
> > my view, a desirable outcome.
>
> I don't remember this case; could you elaborate.

This is what the ma'oste has:

pa'aku BAI* each respectively
sumti: explicitly marks respective use as in
"THEY read THEIR (respective) books".

> > > It
> > > does not seem to me appropriate for the
> > grammar
> > > to take sides on this, hence my suggestion
> > that
> > > the unused forms be declared undetermine but
> > als
> > > show which way the predictions of their use
> > lie.
> >
> > It's hard to see how that differs from what is
> > being done
> > now.
>
> Well, you may take the definitions and examples
> offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I fear
> that most people take them as carved in at least
> something more enduring than Jell-o, to the
> detriment of creativity in this area.

What kind of creativity? How can an example preclude
semantic extension? I hope the examples preclude
the {pa'aku} type of creativity, I don't see how they can
preclude purely semantic extension.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > (although it is not clear how you can tell
> that
> > the forms don't have interesting new meanings
> if
> > the basic meanings they are to have are not
> yet
> > — or are only just now — decided; perhaps
> the
> > meaning that they have actually been used to
> have
> > are significant variations on the
> programmatic
> > ones, had those been specified before).
>
> Huh? The programmatic meanings have for the
> most part
> been in place for more than ten years, they are
> not being
> decided now.

I was under the impression that BPFK was there to
clarify what were generally a pretty vague set of
specifications (which they certainly are,
probably as a result of being programmatic). If
you are leaving the defintions which have been
around for a decade in place, I do not see what
the point of all this is — except to make up a
passle of implausible (and immediately disputed)
exemplary usages — not a particularly useful
exercise.

> > On the
> > other hand, if people do use {ti'u} instead
> of
> > {ca}, then in Lojban as she are spoke it
> means
> > that; that is what dictionary writing is all
> > about.
>
> But that is not what the BPFK is about. We are
> defining prescriptively, not recording the
> mostly
> erroneous use of Lojban by non-fluent speakers
> which will for the most part readily admit that
> their
> usage is erroneous when the mistake is pointed
> out.

So you are in fact just getting around to the
real meanings of expressions. I will ignore the
oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I
understand the point: "not what the best users
(you and robin and maybe nick) would use it to
mean." I covered that case — in the next
paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there
"mistake" and argue they are right (other than
"that's what the keyword said"(, then you have
more of a problem. Apparently that does not
often happen. So this is for the moment moot.

> > The history of success
> > in that endeavor is not encouraging to be
> sure
> > (Gresham's Law); I have given up on
> > "disinterested," for example (even the New
> York
> > Times uses it for "lacks interest") — though
> I
> > don't (I think) use it myself.
>
> dictionary.com has a note on that:
> "... Oddly enough, "not interested" is the
> oldest sense
> of the word, going back to the 17th century.
> This sense
> became outmoded in the 18th century but
> underwent a
> revival in the first quarter of the early 20th.
> Despite its
> resuscitation, this usage is widely considered
> an error."

I'm not sure what the moral of this is. I know
that it used to mean what it is coming to mean
again; that does not prevent this from being an
"error" to my prescriptivist side (that is, it
ain't what I learned). I also recognize that

there is not a good word for
uninterested

(because, for some reason, "uninterested" is
thought to be too ugly to use).


> > But in the cases where the
> > usage actually fills a need — and the
> offical
> > line does not — then the editor and the
> > dictionary writer would be wisest to follow
> > usage. The exceptions, like {du'o} and {ri'a
> > nai}, actually existed, apparently, before
> the
> > (perhaps implicit) rules but surely no one
> (well,
> > you in fact have, so I'd better not say this)
> > would go back to change them now.
>
> I wouldn't have a problem with defining {du'o}
> as {fi'o jinvi}.
> I do have some problem with defining it as
> {fi'o djuno} and
> keywording it as "according to".

That is.f course, against the implicit (actually
explicit apparently, given Lojbab's comments)
rule. But I don't expect either to change the
meaning to "known by" nor the form to {ji'i}.

> {ri'a nai} is a separate issue, using {nai} to
> mark duals,
> which is not its usual function. I just prefer
> regularity there.

Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to mark a
dual, it is just using the simplest combination
of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common such
expression — aided by the fact that the regular
forms either make no sense ("opposite of cause")
or are generally useless ("caused by not").

> > > Using BAIs for
> > > non-BAI functions,
> > > (like the sometime proposed function for
> > > pa'aku) is not, in
> > > my view, a desirable outcome.
> >
> > I don't remember this case; could you
> elaborate.
>
> This is what the ma'oste has:
>
> pa'aku BAI* each respectively
>
> sumti: explicitly marks respective use as in
> "THEY read THEIR (respective) books".

Well, aside from calling this usage BAI, what is
the problem — but then I haven't seen an
example: something like {ko'e cilre pa'aku lo
cukta}? Yuck indeed.

> > > > It
> > > > does not seem to me appropriate for the
> > > grammar
> > > > to take sides on this, hence my
> suggestion
> > > that
> > > > the unused forms be declared undetermine
> but
> > > als
> > > > show which way the predictions of their
> use
> > > lie.
> > >
> > > It's hard to see how that differs from what
> is
> > > being done
> > > now.
> >
> > Well, you may take the definitions and
> examples
> > offered as mere suggestions and hints, but I
> fear
> > that most people take them as carved in at
> least
> > something more enduring than Jell-o, to the
> > detriment of creativity in this area.
>
> What kind of creativity? How can an example
> preclude
> semantic extension? I hope the examples
> preclude
> the {pa'aku} type of creativity, I don't see
> how they can
> preclude purely semantic extension.

I am not sure what you mean by extensions, but
the fact that you allow them suggests that the
definitions are not to be taken too seriously.
In that case, it would be a kindness to say so,
rather than giving the impression that these a4re
the final words. So it turns out we are pretty
close after all, though I sppose we would draw
lines of acceptability in different places: I
like {ri'a nai} for "in spite of", you don't; you
have no problem with {du'o} in spite of its not
being from {djuno}, I have other problems with
its current use (not a BAI, I would say --
probably somewhat milder than your objections to
{pa'aku}, which certainly does not look like any
BAI (even BAI*) I've ever heard of in either
distribution or function — and doesn't seem to
come from {panra} or any associated notion. Of
course {pa'a} itself is an odd BAI.)


On 5/17/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I will ignore the
> oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I
> understand the point: "not what the best users
> (you and robin and maybe nick) would use it to
> mean."

Much of my own impromptu usage I consider erroneous
when examined more carefully. We are simply not at the
point were fluent-speaker intuition trumps rational analysis yet.

> I covered that case — in the next
> paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there
> "mistake" and argue they are right (other than
> "that's what the keyword said"(, then you have
> more of a problem.

Well, there are disagreements, of course. But in those
cases the argument is never "that's how it is because
that's how I use it". The arguments are about what is
more useful, more regular, more in accordance with
the baseline, etc. Nobody really appeals to speaker intuition.


> Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to mark a
> dual, it is just using the simplest combination
> of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common such
> expression — aided by the fact that the regular
> forms either make no sense ("opposite of cause")
> or are generally useless ("caused by not").

The regular {ri'a nai} = "not caused by".

I think "prevent" is a reasonable opposite of "cause", if
not the only possible one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I will ignore the
> > oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I
> > understand the point: "not what the best
> users
> > (you and robin and maybe nick) would use it
> to
> > mean."
>
> Much of my own impromptu usage I consider
> erroneous
> when examined more carefully. We are simply not
> at the
> point were fluent-speaker intuition trumps
> rational analysis yet.

Nor would I want it to (until there are certified
fluent speakers in the appropriate sense (though
this getsmildly circular at some point — the
certification of the first few cases at least).
See below.

> > I covered that case — in the next
> > paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there
> > "mistake" and argue they are right (other
> than
> > "that's what the keyword said"(, then you
> have
> > more of a problem.
>
> Well, there are disagreements, of course. But
> in those
> cases the argument is never "that's how it is
> because
> that's how I use it". The arguments are about
> what is
> more useful, more regular, more in accordance
> with
> the baseline, etc. Nobody really appeals to
> speaker intuition.

Which of course ultimately comes down to the
judgments of those set up (more or less by
themselves with other acceding) as the arbitrors
of what is useful, regular or in accord with the
baselines (none of these being at all obvious --
though "useful" is related to actual use
somewhat).

>
> > Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to
> mark a
> > dual, it is just using the simplest
> combination
> > of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common
> such
> > expression — aided by the fact that the
> regular
> > forms either make no sense ("opposite of
> cause")
> > or are generally useless ("caused by not").
>
> The regular {ri'a nai} = "not caused by".
>
> I think "prevent" is a reasonable opposite of
> "cause", if
> not the only possible one.
>
"not caused by" is, as the discussion showed, not
very useful, nor is "caused by not." "prevent"
is the obvious polar opposite of "cause," at
least as far as utility goes. I do not deny that
{to'e ri'a nai} (left grouping, of course) means
"in spite of" in a totally regular way; I am only
claiming that {ri'a nai} is a reasonable form to
use for this notion on Zipfean grounds if not
other wise. And, of course, it has been around
in that sense for (I haven't checked this) about
40 years, whereas {to'e} at least is barely a
decade old.


On 5/18/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I do not deny that
> {to'e ri'a nai} (left grouping, of course) means
> "in spite of" in a totally regular way; I am only
> claiming that {ri'a nai} is a reasonable form to
> use for this notion on Zipfean grounds if not
> other wise. And, of course, it has been around
> in that sense for (I haven't checked this) about
> 40 years, whereas {to'e} at least is barely a
> decade old.

So we agree that:
- {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in shortness.
- {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in tradition.
- {to'e ri'a nai} beats {ri'a nai} in compositionality.

We just disagree on how much weight we assign to each
factor, so that we end up with a different preference overall.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388


> On 5/18/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I do not deny that
> > {to'e ri'a nai} (left grouping, of course)
> means
> > "in spite of" in a totally regular way; I am
> only
> > claiming that {ri'a nai} is a reasonable form
> to
> > use for this notion on Zipfean grounds if not
> > other wise. And, of course, it has been
> around
> > in that sense for (I haven't checked this)
> about
> > 40 years, whereas {to'e} at least is barely a
> > decade old.
>
> So we agree that:
> - {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in
> shortness.
> - {ri'a nai} beats {to'e ri'a nai} in
> tradition.
> - {to'e ri'a nai} beats {ri'a nai} in
> compositionality.
>
> We just disagree on how much weight we assign
> to each
> factor, so that we end up with a different
> preference overall.

Yup! And I cannot think of a coherent way to
argue this one out. I do suppose, however, that
{ri'a nai} is likely to stick around given its
long history in the cmavo lists.


posts: 162

John Cowan wrote:
> Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
>
>
>>People complained (this might have been Nick, and Cowan too) that while
>>each BAI was nominally associated with some selbri and picked out one
>>place of that selbri, it was unpredictable which place was the one of
>>most interest. Some BAIs had several places useful while others seemed
>>to be either less useful or at least not corresponding to some English
>>equivalent.
>
>
> No, this was before my time and therefore before Nick's time too. It must
> have been some of the early students.

I checked the archives, and my memory was mostly correct. There were
key decisions in 1988 and 1991, with most of the ones I referred to made
in 1991. The 1988 decision (which allowed the use of converters on BAI
but was not systematic) was made collectively by Nora, pc, and me, as I
described in the following history at the time of the 1991 debates,
which led to the current design:
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00007.html
That basically describes how BAI was created as an amalgam of multiple
selma'o, and it notes how unsystematically we had been about using
converters with BAI up till 1991, though usage had tended to point the
BAI members closer to the gismu that were associated with them.

At the same time, there was a private discussion between Jim Carter and
me, reported by jimc here:
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00037.html

I included the issue in a series of messages on cmavo dated 11 Jun 1991,
of which the key one is here
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00045.html
This includes some of Cowan's writing on ci'a (I'm sure there is more,
but I didn't look), and contained the essential nature of current BAI as
a quasi-abbreviation for a FIhO construct.

Chassell commented here:
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00051.html
and summarized things in this message (which is garbaged up)
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00052.html
and he then extended his remarks with the following
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00060.html
which I think was the first generalization of the idea that BAI adds
places to the place structure.

I commented at
http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00081.html

I also mentioned in my multipart post consulting with pc, who had done a
review of a book on case tags for us, and thus I am pretty sure that pc
was involved in the discussion at the time, albeit by telephone rather
than online, and of course he was involved in the earlier decision which
created BAI.

http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00091.html
is my discussion about Lojban BAI and case tags

I think some of this discussion in those ancient messages put things a
little more clearly than I did in my off-the-cuff history the other
night. Whether it enlightens any of the current discussion, I will
leave to you-all to decide.

lojbab


On 5/19/05, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

many interesting links to old messages showing basically that
you have to be insane to be a Lojbanist. But I found something
here especially interesting, not directly related to BAIs:

> http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9106/msg00091.html

Lojbab wrote in 1991:

"When we are so unsure of the place structures that alone of all
features of the language we do not intend to baseline them - if for no
other reason simply because of the impossibility of a comprehensive
and consistent place structure analysis to be completed before we
put out a dictionary."

This good intention was frustrated and reversed at some point?
The idea was of course that the putting out of a dictionary was
imminent. Almost sixteen years later and with the dictionary still not
out, I think it would not be a bad idea to do some analysis and revision
of place structures for consistency, even if it turns out not to be fully
and absolutely comprehensive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes