Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tak - Tanto

Expand Messages
  • lingwadeplaneta
    There is one thing I keep remembering from time to time. There are some words with a narrow meaning that could actually have a wider meaning, as corresponding
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      There is one thing I keep remembering from time to time. There are some words with a narrow meaning that could actually have a wider meaning, as corresponding natlang words demonstrate. For example, TAK could mean not only "in this way" but also "to such an extent, so much", which meaning is currently expressed only by TANTO.
      That is to say, it could be equally possible to say

      Ta es tanto jamile.
      and
      Ta es tak jamile.

      This would comply with the principle of facultative precision: some words have a wider meaning and are used most of the time while some others have a narrower meaning and are used when needed.

      Another such pair is KROME and EXEPTE. In English they are different but in Russian the same. So we could well make KROME have both meanings, leaving EXEPTE with its narrow meaning.

      The third pair I can think of is HAISHI and YOSHI. We could make HAISHI have a wide meaning like the French ENCORE or the Russian YESCHO, so that it could be equally possible to say
      yoshi pyu gran
      and
      haishi pyu gran

      yoshi un ves
      and
      haishi un ves.
    • Attilio Liotto
      Chao amigas! Me dumi ke sey dwaple o triple signifa lai pa selfa idyen afte idyen, sufi bu prohibi it. 2012/1/2 lingwadeplaneta
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Chao amigas!

        Me dumi ke sey dwaple o triple signifa lai pa selfa idyen afte idyen,

        sufi bu prohibi it.


        2012/1/2 lingwadeplaneta <lingwadeplaneta@...>
         

        There is one thing I keep remembering from time to time. There are some words with a narrow meaning that could actually have a wider meaning, as corresponding natlang words demonstrate. For example, TAK could mean not only "in this way" but also "to such an extent, so much", which meaning is currently expressed only by TANTO.
        That is to say, it could be equally possible to say

        Ta es tanto jamile.
        and
        Ta es tak jamile.

        This would comply with the principle of facultative precision: some words have a wider meaning and are used most of the time while some others have a narrower meaning and are used when needed.

        Another such pair is KROME and EXEPTE. In English they are different but in Russian the same. So we could well make KROME have both meanings, leaving EXEPTE with its narrow meaning.

        The third pair I can think of is HAISHI and YOSHI. We could make HAISHI have a wide meaning like the French ENCORE or the Russian YESCHO, so that it could be equally possible to say
        yoshi pyu gran
        and
        haishi pyu gran

        yoshi un ves
        and
        haishi un ves.


      • Robert Winter
        Whatever we do, we must have very clear definitions in the dictionary for all words. I like the precision that comes from having haishi and yoshi and that
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 6, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Whatever we do, we must have very clear definitions in the dictionary for all words. I like the precision that comes from having "haishi" and "yoshi" and that their meaning does not overlap. Nice. Similarly, I prefer to keep "tak" and "tanto" separate and not overlapping in meaning. I think this precision of the meaning of individual words is central to retaining sufficient precision in LdP; facultative precision should be I think for phrases not for individual words.

          By the way, I think it is fine to have synonyms, as long as this is done in moderation. For example it is nice to have both "danke" and "shukran" just for variety. And it is great that the dictionary indicates these as synonyms. That is clear, no confusion. Nice.

          I am not in favour of letting the meaning of words come into being little by little without clear definitions of words in the dictionary. Yes, as a community of users develops it might be that some words take on additional meanings to the ones already defined in the dictionary, but this is no reason not to ensure that the current dictionary definitions are precise and no reason to reduce the precision of already-precise words we already have in LdP.

          The meanings of "krome" and "except" should in my opinion definitely be kept separate and not overlapping. (One of the things about English which frustrates me as a writer, although it is my native language, is that you can write a perfectly good literary sentence and then you later realise to your horror that you have to rewrite it because one of its key words could be interpreted in two conflicting ways... so I would really prefer to be able to use "krome" when I mean "krome" and "except" when I mean "except" and no overlapping.)

          I hope these thoughts help.

          All the best,
          Robert



          --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, "lingwadeplaneta" <lingwadeplaneta@...> wrote:
          >
          > There is one thing I keep remembering from time to time. There are some words with a narrow meaning that could actually have a wider meaning, as corresponding natlang words demonstrate. For example, TAK could mean not only "in this way" but also "to such an extent, so much", which meaning is currently expressed only by TANTO.
          > That is to say, it could be equally possible to say
          >
          > Ta es tanto jamile.
          > and
          > Ta es tak jamile.
          >
          > This would comply with the principle of facultative precision: some words have a wider meaning and are used most of the time while some others have a narrower meaning and are used when needed.
          >
          > Another such pair is KROME and EXEPTE. In English they are different but in Russian the same. So we could well make KROME have both meanings, leaving EXEPTE with its narrow meaning.
          >
          > The third pair I can think of is HAISHI and YOSHI. We could make HAISHI have a wide meaning like the French ENCORE or the Russian YESCHO, so that it could be equally possible to say
          > yoshi pyu gran
          > and
          > haishi pyu gran
          >
          > yoshi un ves
          > and
          > haishi un ves.
          >
        • Stephen Rice
          I agree with Robert, though for slightly different reasons. When an artificial language first arises, all of its elements are prescriptive: they detail what
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree with Robert, though for slightly different reasons. When an
            artificial language first arises, all of its elements are
            prescriptive: they detail what should be rather than what is, simply
            because so far nothing is. Over time, however, if the project succeeds
            and becomes a real language, normal description becomes possible. This
            has happened with Esperanto and to a lesser extent other auxlangs. One
            result is language change, including lexical change, as words change
            meaning and even become obsolete.

            The point is that if LdP succeeds, it will undergo natural
            changes--and that will include lexical change and lexical and semantic
            drift: the meaning of words, so clear in a prescriptive dictionary,
            become fuzzy in actual use. This argues strongly for drawing clear
            distinctions in the prescriptive stage, because those distinctions
            will become more and more fuzzy when life arises.

            I also agree that synonyms aren't a problem. They will probably
            develop different uses over time, but no harm should come of them.

            Steve
          • lingwadeplaneta
            Shukran, amigas! Yu konvinsi me. To finish with recurrent ideas, here is one more: to introduce a universal 3 person singular pronoun which could replace ta,
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 8, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Shukran, amigas! Yu konvinsi me.

              To finish with recurrent ideas, here is one more: to introduce a universal 3 person singular pronoun which could replace ta, lu, ela, it, se, and to. Generally these distinctions are valuable. But it might be handy to have also a general one, let's say ETA. Perhaps phrases like
              Eta pren eta
              or
              Eta dumi om eta
              would be too vague but with sufficient context "eta" could do in some cases. Also it might be easier for beginners.
              What do you think?

              Just for the fun of it, let's see to how many English phrases "Eta dumi om eta" could correspond:
              He thinks about it. (or thought, or will think – it's not important here)
              She thinks about it.
              He thinks about her.
              She thinks about her.
              He thinks about him.
              She thinks about him.
              It thinks about it.
              It thinks about him.
              It thinks about her.
              He thinks about this.
              She thinks about this.
              It thinks about this.
              He thinks about that.
              She thinks about that.
              It thinks about that.
              This thinks about it.
              This thinks about him.
              This thinks about her.
              This thinks about this.
              This thinks about that.
              That thinks about it.
              That thinks about him.
              That thinks about her.
              That thinks about this.
              That thinks about that.

              Uf, many!
              In Russian it will be less, though (Russian doesn't distinguish animate/inanimate) and in Hindi still much less (Hindi has just 1 word for "he, she, it, this" and another for "he, she, it, that")


              > By the way, I think it is fine to have synonyms, as long as this is done in moderation. For example it is nice to have both "danke" and "shukran" just for variety. And it is great that the dictionary indicates these as synonyms. That is clear, no confusion. Nice.

              There may be several "hello" and "thank you", as Hindi demonstrates. Also most Russians I think will understand, besides spasibo and blagodaryu, also at least mersii and senkyu. Recently Sekiko of Japan proposed to introduce also ARIGATOO as thank you, and I am not against it. Later though she proposed also a couple of others for the same meaning, and this felt as a bit too many already. It is well expressed: "as long as this is done in moderation".
              In Russian they often say:
              Vsyo horosho v meru,
              skazal Javaharlal Neru.
              (Everything is good in due measure, as Javaharlal Neru said)
              I strongly suspect that Mr.Neru didn't say anything of the kind and appeared here only for the rhyme, nevertheless the general meaning is true.

              Dmitry
            • Robert Winter
              Hao dey, amigas. I must admit that my initial reaction when I first read this suggestion was abject horror, but that was partly because I had misunderstood the
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 8, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hao dey, amigas.

                I must admit that my initial reaction when I first read this suggestion was abject horror, but that was partly because I had misunderstood the proposal and thought that it also included plural meanings and therefore not only would replace ta/lu/ela/it and se/to in their singular meanings but also se/to in their plural meanings and finally also li. The possibilities for misunderstanding and confusion seemed virtually limitless to me, hence my horror.

                However, upon calmer reflection, **providing it is not overused**, why not? By not overused I mean that if it is intentionally used to intentionally indicate a lack of specificity, I can see that as being very beneficial. In fact, for such a purpose it could be highly beneficial. Consider the second of the following two English sentences: "This law applies to any person, corporation, group of persons, or group of corporations born or incorporated in the twenty-first century. He, she, it, or they must observe this law." If there were a pronoun in English (hypothetically let's call that pronoun "ottok") which incorporated all these possible meanings (animate or inanimate, male or female or of no gender or of unspecified gender, singular or plural) then the second sentence could be rewritten "Ottok must observe this law." And we could continue, for example, "This law shall apply to ottok in perpetuity." And so on. Actually that is much more concise and easy to understand than writing "...he, she, it or they...". But, actually, on second thought, this legal sentence would only work if "ottok" always meant, inclusively, "he, she, it or they" and never just one of those meanings, otherwise the law is ambiguous. Hmmm... I think I just discounted my own best argument. I am already very confused, which is not a good sign to be honest. This worries me.

                To be fair, it is probably my own ignorance of other natural languages which caused my initial reaction of horror. For example, I did not know that one pronoun in Russian covers both inanimate and animate entities. And so on. So, I guess, if we adapt a new pronoun or pronouns which use a scheme similar to a scheme that is already used in a major natural language, why not? It should work. With this in mind, perhaps the chosen pronoun should derive from such a natural pronoun rather than being a priori.

                However, I have grave concerns about people simply using "eta" everywhere. For example, suppose someone from India whose native language is Hindi decides he will use "eta" absolutely everywhere he possibly can, and he is speaking LdP with an Australian whose native language is English. The Australian basically won't have any idea what the Indian means when he says "Eta dumi om eta." and so on. This is like the problem in English, but ten times worse, of things like: "John and Harry were playing soccer. He kicked the ball to him." Who kicked the ball? John or Harry? In "Eta dumi om eta." we have enlarged this problem so as to remove nearly all clues from who or what might be the thinker and who was the object of that thought. So, perhaps due to my ignorance of other languages and my background as an English speaker, I still feel a bit worried about this proposal. However, I would favour its use as described above when the point of its use is to deliberately indicate non-specificity, if that could be done in a non-ambiguous manner (always non-specific, never specific, like the legal example above would require). I might eventually feel comfortable with a more general proposal too but right now I feel a bit too scared ;-)

                Swasti!
                Robert



                --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, "lingwadeplaneta" <lingwadeplaneta@...> wrote:
                >
                > Shukran, amigas! Yu konvinsi me.
                >
                > To finish with recurrent ideas, here is one more: to introduce a universal 3 person singular pronoun which could replace ta, lu, ela, it, se, and to. Generally these distinctions are valuable. But it might be handy to have also a general one, let's say ETA. Perhaps phrases like
                > Eta pren eta
                > or
                > Eta dumi om eta
              • Stephen Rice
                ... It s always troubling when you realize that something will simplify matters for legislators. ... Russian has grammatical gender, which means, among other
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 8, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 1/8/12, Robert Winter <robert.james.winter@...> wrote:

                  > However, upon calmer reflection, **providing it is not overused**, why not?
                  > By not overused I mean that if it is intentionally used to intentionally
                  > indicate a lack of specificity, I can see that as being very beneficial. In
                  > fact, for such a purpose it could be highly beneficial. Consider the second
                  > of the following two English sentences: "This law applies to any person,
                  > corporation, group of persons, or group of corporations born or incorporated
                  > in the twenty-first century. He, she, it, or they must observe this law." If
                  > there were a pronoun in English (hypothetically let's call that pronoun
                  > "ottok") which incorporated all these possible meanings (animate or
                  > inanimate, male or female or of no gender or of unspecified gender, singular
                  > or plural) then the second sentence could be rewritten "Ottok must observe
                  > this law." And we could continue, for example, "This law shall apply to
                  > ottok in perpetuity." And so on. Actually that is much more concise and easy
                  > to understand than writing "...he, she, it or they...". But, actually, on
                  > second thought, this legal sentence would only work if "ottok" always meant,
                  > inclusively, "he, she, it or they" and never just one of those meanings,
                  > otherwise the law is ambiguous. Hmmm... I think I just discounted my own
                  > best argument. I am already very confused, which is not a good sign to be
                  > honest. This worries me.

                  It's always troubling when you realize that something will simplify
                  matters for legislators.

                  > To be fair, it is probably my own ignorance of other natural languages which
                  > caused my initial reaction of horror. For example, I did not know that one
                  > pronoun in Russian covers both inanimate and animate entities. And so on.

                  Russian has grammatical gender, which means, among other things, that
                  books are girls and tables are boys (the opposite of Spanish!), so the
                  pronouns reflect grammatical gender, not sex or animatedness as such.
                  However, there is an animate/inanimate distinction in the masculine
                  accusative: only animates change form as direct objects.

                  > However, I have grave concerns about people simply using "eta" everywhere.
                  > For example, suppose someone from India whose native language is Hindi
                  > decides he will use "eta" absolutely everywhere he possibly can, and he is
                  > speaking LdP with an Australian whose native language is English. The
                  > Australian basically won't have any idea what the Indian means when he says
                  > "Eta dumi om eta." and so on. This is like the problem in English, but ten
                  > times worse, of things like: "John and Harry were playing soccer. He kicked
                  > the ball to him." Who kicked the ball? John or Harry? In "Eta dumi om eta."
                  > we have enlarged this problem so as to remove nearly all clues from who or
                  > what might be the thinker and who was the object of that thought. So,
                  > perhaps due to my ignorance of other languages and my background as an
                  > English speaker, I still feel a bit worried about this proposal.

                  Basically, everyone gets to learn something. Some people get to learn
                  how to deal with sexed and/or numbered pronouns, and others get to
                  learn how to deal with pronouns that lack these features. That's
                  neutrality. A bit scary, too.

                  The only thing that worries me is someone not used to the more
                  ambiguous form trying to be clever with it, but I doubt anything worse
                  than annoyance would come even of that.

                  Steve
                • lingwadeplaneta
                  ... everybodything ... Thanks for the warning. On second and third thought, I don t see that eta would bring any real advantages. One can t live only with
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 9, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In lingwadeplaneta@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Winter" <robert.james.winter@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hao dey, amigas.
                    >
                    > I must admit that my initial reaction when I first read this suggestion was abject horror, but that was partly because I had misunderstood the proposal and thought that it also included plural meanings and therefore not only would replace ta/lu/ela/it and se/to in their singular meanings but also se/to in their plural meanings and finally also li. The possibilities for misunderstanding and confusion seemed virtually limitless to me, hence my horror.
                    >
                    > However, upon calmer reflection, **providing it is not overused**, why not? By not overused I mean that if it is intentionally used to intentionally indicate a lack of specificity, I can see that as being very beneficial. In fact, for such a purpose it could be highly beneficial. Consider the second of the following two English sentences: "This law applies to any person, corporation, group of persons, or group of corporations born or incorporated in the twenty-first century. He, she, it, or they must observe this law." If there were a pronoun in English (hypothetically let's call that pronoun "ottok") which incorporated all these possible meanings (animate or inanimate, male or female or of no gender or of unspecified gender, singular or plural)
                    >

                    everybodything


                    > then the second sentence could be rewritten "Ottok must observe this law." And we could continue, for example, "This law shall apply to ottok in perpetuity." And so on. Actually that is much more concise and easy to understand than writing "...he, she, it or they...". But, actually, on second thought, this legal sentence would only work if "ottok" always meant, inclusively, "he, she, it or they" and never just one of those meanings, otherwise the law is ambiguous. Hmmm... I think I just discounted my own best argument. I am already very confused, which is not a good sign to be honest. This worries me.
                    >
                    > To be fair, it is probably my own ignorance of other natural languages which caused my initial reaction of horror. For example, I did not know that one pronoun in Russian covers both inanimate and animate entities. And so on. So, I guess, if we adapt a new pronoun or pronouns which use a scheme similar to a scheme that is already used in a major natural language, why not? It should work. With this in mind, perhaps the chosen pronoun should derive from such a natural pronoun rather than being a priori.
                    >
                    > However, I have grave concerns about people simply using "eta" everywhere. For example, suppose someone from India whose native language is Hindi decides he will use "eta" absolutely everywhere he possibly can, and he is speaking LdP with an Australian whose native language is English. The Australian basically won't have any idea what the Indian means when he says "Eta dumi om eta." and so on.


                    Thanks for the warning. On second and third thought, I don't see that "eta" would bring any real advantages. One can't live only with it, so one will have to master all the other pronouns anyway.

                    For me personally, there is no problem if one pronoun is used for animate and inanimate, but it's having the same word for personal and demonstrative that is problematic. Does "Eta es hao" mean "he/she is good" or "this/that is good"? So I took the biggest Hindi grammar I could get here in order to understand, how actually Hindus are living with it. It turns out that, although "yah" (this, he/she/it) and "wah" (that, he/she/it) are used both as personal and demonstrative pronouns, statistically "yah" is more often used as demonstrative pronoun while "wah" as personal. In other words, "yah achcha hai" will more often mean "This is good" while "wah achcha hai" - "He/it is good". This solves the question, because it means that all the major natlangs make the distinction.


                    >This is like the problem in English, but ten times worse, of things like: "John and Harry were playing soccer. He kicked the ball to him." Who kicked the ball? John or Harry?

                    In Russian it's the same. Either context helps or one has to repeat the name.

                    Dmitry
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.