Lojban In General

Lojban In General

Forum List Topic List

Forums > Lojban In General > The correct interpretation of {sisti}?
 
Thread actions
Print this page
  • Print all pages

    • The correct interpretation of {sisti}?

    Posted by arj on Wed 02 of Dec, 2009 22:07 GMT posts: 953

    Sarefo's recent work on {fagysti} and {fagystigau} has revealed a possible ambiguity in the definition of {sisti}:

    x1 agent ceases/stops/halts/ends activity/process/state x2 not necessarily completing it.

    There are two possible interpretations, as far as we have been able to determine:
    a) x1 (agent) causes event x2 to stop.
    b) x1 discontinues being/doing x2.

    Data in favour of interpretation a):

    • "agent" in definitions are usually contrastive wrt. intransitive verbs: there is an implication that something is being brought about.
    • "agent" in the definition implies that someone is capable of acting. It is absurd to call an inanimate process such as a fire an "agent".
    • It fills a semantic gap. If {sisti} has meaning a), then {fanmo} can be used for meaning b). But if {sisti} has meaning b), then a lujvo is necessary.
    • Interpretation b) would be overspecified. Since the x1 is already embedded in the x2 (even though it may not be overtly present), it could be deleted, and the x2 moved to the front, thus: "x1 (event) stops." There has been an effort to purge the gismu list of such double specification; the fact that this has not happened here makes it more plausible that a genuine agentive is intended.


    Data in favour of interpretation b):

    • The lujvo "fagysti", with the meaning "be extinguished" has significant antiquity; likewise "fagystigau" with the meaning "put out". If interpretation a) is correct, then "fagysti" is incorrect and "fagystigau" is redundant.
    • The English word "cease", according to the dictionaries I have access to, _always_ means to discontinue, _never_ to stop something that one is not inself involved in.
    • Most usage has a person in the x1, and something the person stops doing in the x2.


    --
    Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
    On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove you're not a dog. --Bill de hÓra


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Reads: 9021
    Link
    Posted by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= on Wed 02 of Dec, 2009 22:07 GMT

    On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen<arj@nvg.org> wrote:
    > Sarefo's recent work on {fagysti} and {fagystigau} has revealed a possible ambiguity in the definition of {sisti}:
    >
    > x1 agent ceases/stops/halts/ends activity/process/state x2 not necessarily completing it.
    >
    > There are two possible interpretations, as far as we have been able to determine:
    > a) x1 (agent) causes event x2 to stop.
    > b) x1 discontinues being/doing x2.
    >
    > Data in favour of interpretation a):
    > * "agent" in definitions are usually contrastive wrt. intransitive verbs: there is an implication that something is being brought about.

    The subject of an intransitive verb can be the agent. In "John runs",
    John is the agent of the action, so I don't think a
    transitive/intransitive distinction helps here. Both interpretations
    would be "transitive", if by that we mean that the gismu has an x2
    place.

    The question is whether "x1 agent" means that x1 has to be the agent
    of the stopping only, or whether it is also required to be the agent
    of the action in x2. In both cases x1 is an agent.

    > * "agent" in the definition implies that someone is capable of acting. It is absurd to call an inanimate process such as a fire an "agent".

    See however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_(grammar)
    "For example, in the sentence His energy surprised everyone, His
    energy is the agent, even though it does not have most of the typical
    agent-like qualities such as perception, movement, or volition."

    I agree though that a fire extinguishing is more like a patient than an agent.

    > * It fills a semantic gap. If {sisti} has meaning a), then {fanmo} can be used for meaning b). But if {sisti} has meaning b), then a lujvo is necessary.

    But "fanmo" is not a change of state like "sisti" is.

    In any case, the non-agentive "comes to an end" would have to be
    "tolcfa" (or "selfambi'o"). We have four cases:

    tolcfa: non-agentive "x1 comes to an end"
    sisti: agentive "x1 stops doing x2"
    tolcfagau: agentive "x1 brings x2 to an end"
    stigau: double-agentive "x1 makes x2 stop doing x3"

    > * Interpretation b) would be overspecified. Since the x1 is already embedded in the x2 (even though it may not be overtly present), it could be deleted, and the x2 moved to the front, thus: "x1 (event) stops." There has been an effort to purge the gismu list of such double specification; the fact that this has not happened here makes it more plausible that a genuine agentive is intended.

    There are gismu where x1 is the agent of action x2: zukte, troci,
    snada, fliba...

    A rationalization of gismu place structures would be something good,
    but probably it should be done with some system, looking at whole
    classes of gismu, not one at a time.

    mu'o mi'e xorxes


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link