2014-07-29 14:41 GMT+04:00 Logan Streondj <[log in to unmask]>:
> > For instance I looked at some of the new entries to jbovlaste,
> > and there are new gismu, which is impressive,
> > however the one I checked only had a german definition.
> >
> Then translate it to other languages. Not all of us speak more than even 6
> most spoken languages.

point is in mkaw the definition would be in mkaw,
thus easily auto-translated to other languages.


>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > "slots" or place-ment based information,
> > > > is very limited in most langauges.
> > > > typically just 3 tops.
> > > > I gave sam coffee.
> > > > notably different from the Lojban dunda which would make it I gave
> > coffee
> > > > sam .
> > > >
> > >
> > > "A gave coffee to Sam."
> > er technically that only uses 2 slots,
> > or placement grammar based places,
> > the third is a prepositional case.
> >
> > > English has up to 4 slots.
> >
> > You'd have to demonstrate an example.
> >
>
> I bet you a buck you won't believe me.

hmmm, I seem to recall this from somewhere.
so that would be
subject, indirect-object/dative, direct-object, ? seems like a subordinate clause of bet to me.

Seems like a 4-place predicate. That's all. One might add the the  4th place contains abstraction type variable.



> Thus it is an illusion that there can be a simple language. The correct
> term is : underspecified language.

that would lump a lot of world languages as "underspecified".
perhaps in comparison to Lojban, since it is a relative term.

Ofc, they are still working on formalised syntax of english in minimalistic theory. However, there is a parser of English, it just needs to be worked on.



> > People often use for in order to convey causation,
> > rather than simply beneficiaries.
> >
>
> Chinese is the best example of NOT using "gei" for causation. Or may be for
> you dative is not "gei" in Chinese then what?

sure dative can be 給 in Chinese or gei in Mandarin.
it's actually a good thing that they have a different word for causation.
使 is cause
為 is for
allows for greater clarity.


as I said:
> > It really depends on how clear the person wants to be.
people can be ambigious if they want to be,
cuz I'm not gonna stop them.


> Jbovlaste is a live database. The whole information of how you can
> contribute is stored on the website (which is still lojban.org although a
> transfer to mw.lojban.org is under way.)
> Here is the page of how you can contribute:
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+You+Can+Help
>
> It explicitly states that you can use jbovlaste.

that's good.


> > The point of mkaw translation is to increase diversity of expression.
> > Unlike with statistical analysis translations,
> > people can say new and unusual things.
> > Their words are translated precisely,
> > rather than what they may or may not have meant.
> >
>
> I see. I won't comment on this.

oh .uinai

Sorry, I got into this discussion only because I mostly reply when someone mentions loglangs.
Now i see what you mean by "metalanguage" and why you are posting this in Auxlang group. I think others have expressed solid opinions on your project.
I won't add to that.
 


> >
> Now I understand how it is implemented.  Thanks for clarification.
>
.ui
what do you think of it?

>
> Nominative is not always=ergative (see Wikipedia).

agent is the most important for mkaw.
Agent is not nominative. Ergative is usually {gau} in Lojban. 


>
>
> > , ri'i (patient/object/accusative)
>
>
> The same for accusative.
>

patient most important.


>
> > , seka'a (to dative),
> >  pu'e (by instrumental)
>
> rather {sepi'o}. Instrumental is one of the few relatively monosemic cases
> although it often overlaps with comitative in SAE languages.
>
> , ra'i (from ablative), sedi'o (at locative)
>
> rather a more  vague {bu'u}.
>
> ,  doi (yo vocative)
> >
>
> You can say {mi cusku fa'a do} as "I say to you" . This would be that
> "diversity" of expression you mentioned with prepositions instead of fixed
> slots.
>
>
> > some useful extras:
> > ji'e (until), ri'a (cause), seva'u (for beneficiary)
> > ja'e (so)
> >
>
> also {tai}.
>
> >
> > and even found some aspects:
> > ca'o (imperfective) .uo (perfective)
> >
> If by perfective you mean Chinese "le" and Russian совершенный вид then it
> is rather {co'i}. Imperfective is {co'inai}. Progressive is {ca'o}.
> The interjection {.uo} is what is "voilà" in French.
>
co'i good for perfective.
ca'o still prefrece of imperfective being the most generic form.

Progressive and imperfective are different aspects.