```2014-11-10 15:13 GMT+03:00 Patrik Austin <[log in to unmask]>:

> > [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.
>

Of course, they are cases. If you are interested in mapping them to e.g.

>
> >> 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.

Just like in any language every frame has a different number of valencies.

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.
>

Just like in Lojban.

>
> (b) A system based on predicate logic has to assign argument places, and
> each assignment computes as one process.

An English system is also based on that. For every frame each valency is
encoded using either a preposition of word order.

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).
>

If we take the verb "to give" then in Russian there are also 9 combinations
of how to say that. Let me show you it:

123 I give an apple to you:

123 Я даю яблоко тебе.
132 Я тебе даю яблоко.
213 Яблоко даю я тебе.
231 Яблоко тебе  даю я.
312 Тебе даю я яблоко.
321 Тебе даю яблоко я.

>
> 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.
>

Lojban is exactly the same. Try using selmaho FA. The reference grammar
explains it all:

123 fa mi dunda fe lo pa plise fi do
132 fa mi dunda fi do fe lo pa plise

... and so on.

So I need only three tags to achieve free word order.

What are the 24 variables you are talking about? Name real Lojban words.

> >> 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
> >> outgrabe…). 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.
>

It depends on the parser in question. I think you confuse logic and
semantics.

>
> > [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)?"
>

This is not happening. Similarly to newbies, children make mistakes when
learning their first language.

>
> 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.
>

Have you tried writing poems in Lojban? A person came to our group in
Lojban and 'eir first poem was absolutely grammatically correct.

Try learning Lojban, it's an amazing language, easier than you might think.
```