Re: TECH: Higley on JOI

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

Greg says:

>                                new JOI
>     Take a look at a sentence with a JOI connective:  mi djica lo
> vanju ku ce lo djacu  "I want the wine and the water."  Here both
> things are se djica.  This sentence can be expanded to:  mi djica lo
> vanju ice mi djica lo djacu.  The "force" of the x2 place of djica is
> distributed to both sumti linked by ce.

I accept the point you are making in this example, (see below), but the
example is flawed.
	jo'u, joi, ce
are non-logical connectives delivering the three basic types of sumti:
individuals, masses, sets. (This is one of lojban's few obligatory
grammatical categories, and, interestingly, it is not shared by any
other language that I know of).

Thus
	mi djica lo vanju ku ce lo djacu
means
	I want the set containing wine and water
and does not say anything about wanting wine or water. Use 'jo'u' or else
use 'lu'i'.

The same applies to the 'ice' construction - except that it is very unclear
what on earth it means. I think it is constructing a set of sentences, but
I'm not sure. In any cases it has been well established that you cannot
in general expand non-logical connectives in this way.

All of which does not affect your point ....

>  Now look at a sentence con-
> taining semau "more than":  mi djica lo vanju nesemau lo djacu  "I
> want the wine more than (I want) the water."  Here the sumti "lo
> vanju" is the x2 place of djica, and semau lo djacu is simply linked
> to it as a modifier.  Awkward!   It is clear semantically, though it
> is not true grammatically in this case, that lo djacu is a kind of
> "spiritual" x2 place of djica.  Why not make it one explicitly?  Think
> how much clearer and easier it would be to say mi djica lo djacu ku
> mau lo vanju or mi djica lo vanju ku semau lo djacu DD regarding these
> as JOI.

The effect you want *can* be achieved with the current grammar, admittedly
less elegantly:
	mi djica lo vanju .esemaubo lo djacu
asserts that both are wanted and that there is a "semau" between them.

(Note that this gives a possibility of variation lacking in your method:
	mi djica lo vanju .anaisemaubo lo djacu
	"I want wine only if, but more than, water")


>     In this way they could even be used in tanru, just as the members
> of JOI are.  We could say le karce cu xunre semau narju "The car was
> more red than orange."  With the current definition of the grammar, I
> can't even imagine how to say something like this.  You can see how
> much easier it is to do if we change the grammar of mau and me'a.

I wasn't sure about this one at first, but I think it works.This one you
can't do in the current grammar, except by using 'gu'e' (as pointed out
in my "Headache song" translation).
	le karce cu gu'e mau xunre gi narju

>     Sentences too could be linked much more easily this way.  We could
> say le karce cu xunre isemau ri narju.

That is the form most closely approached by the current grammar:
	le karce cu xunre .isemaubo ri narju


What your suggestion does ignore is the possibility that there are uses of
mau which are genuinely sumti tcita (attached to a selbri). I agree these
are not frequent, but there are some:

	mi gleki semau tu'a le prujeftu
	"I am happier than last week"


	ta xunre semau le karce
	" That is red, more than the car"

Probably you can always find a paraphrase (often using "zmadu"),
but the fact is that there are current uses of mau which your proposal does not
 meet (note that you can almost always paraphrase a sumti tcita with the
corresponding gismu, but this does not make them useless).

>
> I suggest me'a for "less than" and mau for "more than".  This is
> opposite to the current definition, but seems more intuitively cor-
> rect.  Their conversions, seme'a and semau would be unnecessary.
> Keeping their place structure integrity would be irrelevant, since
> they would no longer be BAI.

If they were changed to JOI, this would make some sense: place structures
for most BAI are counter-intuitive until you understand the principle.
However, note that 'joik' in the grammar has an optional 'SE' anyway -
at present the only asymmetric JOI is 'ce'o', but conversion is permitted
for all of them.


>       1.   mi mau la djan djica le nu klama ta
>            I more than John want to go there.
>       2.   mi djica le nu klama ta  imau la djan go'i
>            I want to go there more than John does.
>       3.   mi djica le nu klama ta me'a la rom
>            I want to go there less than to Rome.

These are all good, but can be expressed with '[j]esemaubo'


>       4.   mi pumauca nelci lo vanju
>            I was more than I am fond of wine.

This is exciting. I can't see an easy way of doing it at present. The best I
can think of is:
	mipepu .esemaubo mipeca cu nelci lo vanju

>       5.   mi dzukla mau bajykla
>            I am more a walker than a runner.

Poor example - I took that as "I walk more than I run", which is different
in English, but the principle stands.
	mi dzukla gi'esemaubo bajykla
- but that has a different structure, because yours is one tanru, mine is not.

This example also shows the general problem with "mau" - the scale is not
expressed. This is a problem with the existing "mau" too, but it is
possible to add a "ci'u" or "ji'u" phrase. I'm not sure that would work with
"mau" in JOI.

Mark responded:
>
> Oh, my.  {mau} and {me'a} as JOIs.  The scary part is that it makes a lot
> of sense.  I don't feel strongly enough to join Higley in calling for their
> re-classification, mostly because it's a major change in concept and in
> syntax, and it would invalidate a lot of text.  But if by some bizarre set
> of circumstances reclassifying them gains support, I wouldn't be opposed,
> much.  Gotta think about this more.
>

I agree that it makes a lot of sense, and is quite attractive. I don't agree
that "it's a major change in concept and in syntax" - on the contrary, it is
shifting two words from one selma'o to another (existing) one. It would
invalidate a lot of text.

However, I think that unless Greg can convince me that he can cope with
existing structures, I will not support the change.

	Colin