Print

Print


> [Gleki:] Saying that positional case system makes arguments bind to certain position can be equally applied to proposed by you metaphorical system when one has to bind a certain metaphorical preposition to a certain valency. So your
rgument can be equally applied to the other side. You can't say "I think in
you" in English but you can and have to in Spanish.

You're too fixed on the metaphoric argument. It changes nothing. You mention 'fengu', for instance which has the dictionary entry: x1 is angry/mad at x2 for x3 (action/state/property):

x1 is the nominative case, x2 is a certain 'at' case (at4), x3 is a certain 'for' case (for9). These are nothing less and nothing more than cases, and as for Lakoff's metaphorical problem, it's already sorted. 

>> 1) Finnish: NOM + ALL + ACC = 3 variables
>> 2) Lojban: NOM + ALL + ACC = 3 + 3 x 2 x 1 = 9 variables
>>
>> Hence this point of grammar is logically three times more complicated in
>> Lojban than in Finnish.

> [Gleki:] What do those numbers mean? {dunda} has three valencies. That's all. I don't know what you are counting.

These are the number of rules necessary for a full grammar. If all Lojban words were like dunda, there wouldn't be an issue. But, as you yourself have stated, they are not - hence the issue. This is just logic, and no, Google calculator is not broken, but I'll break it down for you:

(a) A case system with authentic free word order has NO RULES concerning word order. Therefore to experiment with a toy grammar we take any word and three cases (NOM, ALL, ACC). You have four words that you can arrange in any which order.

(b) A system based on predicate logic has to assign argument places, and each assignment computes as one process. I call these processes rules. Let's have a look at how many ways there are to arrange three arguments for any predicate word. But as you claim there are no cases in Lojban, we'll just use numbers one, two and three. Here are all possible ways to arrange the series:

1-2-3
1-3-2
2-1-3
2-3-1
3-1-2
3-2-1

Earlier, to save time and space I wrote 3 x 2 x 1. If you count these manually, you should come to the same result both ways. This is what I mean by logic: it is the combination of the laws of language and mathematics. My conclusion was that the toy Lojban has the variables one, two and three + 3 x 2 x 1 = 9 variables (but this is a mere prelude to when things go out of control as you should be able to count for yourself).

However you say Lojban has free word order. To assign a place for the predicate word as well, you would need 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 variables as opposed to the UNAFFECTED system (a). On the other hand you show me changing word order in Lojban is not so simple; further rules will be necessary. I'll take your word on that.

>> cf. Lewis
>> Carroll's poem Jabberwocky ('Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre
>> and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths
>> outgrabeā€¦). In Lojban you can't logically do anything with a word until the
>> argument places have been assigned.

> [Gleki:] Haha, and until a meaning is assigned to the word.
Naturally without it a word can't exist.

But Lewis Carroll just proved you it can, and English teachers agree it works.

>> > [Gleki:] Huh? Everyone has to bend the rules in any language to be
>> propoerly
>> understood.
>>
>> Yes, but Lojban ceases to be logical/understood by AI.

> [Gleki:] Prove your words.

Huh? That was from Powell which you yourself called an important source. Powell writes: "What If Lojban Stops Being Logical? This is the option that really scares me: that natural language constructs will be imported into Lojban that will turn it into something I don't want to be associated with. If people start saying "le prenu klama" for "the person goes", a standard newbie mistake, and it becomes popular, will we have to respect that as valid, simply because there is usage behind it, even though it destroys the language (it would not longer be formally parseable)?"

I think the real problem here is that you simply don't want to understand, and I don't think my words are going to do anything to change that.