Opacity - Revision history

Laqme: /* Lexical opacity */remove a paragraph

2022-11-28T20:18:31Z

Lexical opacity: remove a paragraph

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 28 November 2022
Line 15:		Line 15:

	== Lexical opacity ==		== Lexical opacity ==
	In some [[loglang]]s, compound words are "transparent", meaning you can analyze their parts. For example, in Loglan, ''trigru'' is necessarily a compound of ''tri'' (tree) + ''gru'' (group). A listener who doesn't know this word can still deduce that it refers to groups ~~related to trees~~. (The word means "forest".)		In some [[loglang]]s, compound words are "transparent", meaning you can analyze their parts. For example, in Loglan, ''trigru'' is necessarily a compound of ''tri'' (tree) + ''gru'' (group). A listener who doesn't know this word can still deduce that it refers to tree-groups in some sense. (The word means "forest".)

	Toaq does not have this property: its compounds are '''opaque'''. This means that even though {{t\|muaome}} is ''etymologically'' formed as {{t\|muao}} plus {{t\|me}} (which may be a useful mnemonic), there is no way to infer the meaning or structure of an unfamiliar word in general, or to even tell that it ''is'' a compound.		Toaq does not have this property: its compounds are '''opaque'''. This means that even though {{t\|muaome}} is ''etymologically'' formed as {{t\|muao}} plus {{t\|me}} (which may be a useful mnemonic), there is no way to infer the meaning or structure of an unfamiliar word in general, or to even tell that it ''is'' a compound.

	This gives wordsmiths much more freedom: we can freely make new multi-syllable [[root]]s, or "exocentric compounds" like {{t\|tıqshoaı}} (which is not a kind of {{t\|shoaı}}).		This gives wordsmiths much more freedom: we can freely make new multi-syllable [[root]]s, or "exocentric compounds" like {{t\|tıqshoaı}} (which is not a kind of {{t\|shoaı}}).

	The philosophy is that not much is lost, in other words, transparent compounds aren't very useful: even if you can "reliably" analyze Lojban ''mencti'' into "mind + eat", you can ''still'' not fully infer its meaning or place structure with any certainty without looking it up in the dictionary. (I doubt you can correctly guess what it means!)

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
	<references />		<references />

Laqme: /* Lexical opacity */

2022-10-19T17:41:25Z

Lexical opacity

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 19 October 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:
	This gives wordsmiths much more freedom: we can freely make new multi-syllable [[root]]s, or "exocentric compounds" like {{t\|tıqshoaı}} (which is not a kind of {{t\|shoaı}}).		This gives wordsmiths much more freedom: we can freely make new multi-syllable [[root]]s, or "exocentric compounds" like {{t\|tıqshoaı}} (which is not a kind of {{t\|shoaı}}).

	The philosophy is that not much is lost, in other words, transparent compounds aren't very useful: even if you can "reliably" analyze Lojban ''mencti'' into "mind + eat", you can ''still'' not fully infer its meaning or place structure with any certainty without looking it up in the dictionary.		The philosophy is that not much is lost, in other words, transparent compounds aren't very useful: even if you can "reliably" analyze Lojban ''mencti'' into "mind + eat", you can ''still'' not fully infer its meaning or place structure with any certainty without looking it up in the dictionary. (I doubt you can correctly guess what it means!)

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
	<references />		<references />

Laqme at 17:40, 19 October 2022

2022-10-19T17:40:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 19 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''Opaque''' is used in two senses:
			# Grammatical opacity, which has to do with [[scope]].
			# Lexical opacity, meaning "you can't reliably analyze the parts of a compound".

			== Grammatical opacity ==
	Grammatical structures are called '''opaque'''<ref>This is Toaq or [[loglang]] jargon, not linguistics jargon.</ref> when they block inner quantifiers from moving up to the front of the outer clause like normal.		Grammatical structures are called '''opaque'''<ref>This is Toaq or [[loglang]] jargon, not linguistics jargon.</ref> when they block inner quantifiers from moving up to the front of the outer clause like normal.

	For example, object-incorporating verbs are said to be opaque~~: quantifications~~ in phrases like {{t\|po tu poq}} are restricted to a ficticious small "{{t\|po}} + object clause", rather than the encompassing clause.		For example, object-incorporating verbs like {{t\|po}} are said to be opaque. Quantifications in phrases like {{t\|po tu poq}} are restricted to a ficticious small "{{t\|po}} + object clause", rather than the encompassing clause.

	Another way to think about this is that the {{t\|tu}} doesn't leave the ''definition'' of the new verb created by {{t\|po tu X}}.		Another way to think about this is that the {{t\|tu}} doesn't leave the ''definition'' of the new verb created by {{t\|po tu X}}.
Line 8:		Line 13:

	And thus {{t\|<u>po tu pỏq</u> sa kủa}} means "some rooms <u>are everyone's</u>", regardless of the other quantifiers in the sentence, and not something like "∀[P: poq(P)] ∃[K: kua(K)] K is P's."		And thus {{t\|<u>po tu pỏq</u> sa kủa}} means "some rooms <u>are everyone's</u>", regardless of the other quantifiers in the sentence, and not something like "∀[P: poq(P)] ∃[K: kua(K)] K is P's."

			== Lexical opacity ==
			In some [[loglang]]s, compound words are "transparent", meaning you can analyze their parts. For example, in Loglan, ''trigru'' is necessarily a compound of ''tri'' (tree) + ''gru'' (group). A listener who doesn't know this word can still deduce that it refers to groups related to trees. (The word means "forest".)

			Toaq does not have this property: its compounds are '''opaque'''. This means that even though {{t\|muaome}} is ''etymologically'' formed as {{t\|muao}} plus {{t\|me}} (which may be a useful mnemonic), there is no way to infer the meaning or structure of an unfamiliar word in general, or to even tell that it ''is'' a compound.

			This gives wordsmiths much more freedom: we can freely make new multi-syllable [[root]]s, or "exocentric compounds" like {{t\|tıqshoaı}} (which is not a kind of {{t\|shoaı}}).

			The philosophy is that not much is lost, in other words, transparent compounds aren't very useful: even if you can "reliably" analyze Lojban ''mencti'' into "mind + eat", you can ''still'' not fully infer its meaning or place structure with any certainty without looking it up in the dictionary.

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
	<references />		<references />

Laqme: Created page with "Grammatical structures are called '''opaque'''This is Toaq or loglang jargon, not linguistics jargon. when they block inner quantifiers from moving up to the front of the outer clause like normal. For example, object-incorporating verbs are said to be opaque: quantifications in phrases like {{t|po tu poq}} are restricted to a ficticious small "{{t|po}} + object clause", rather than the encompassing clause. Another way to think about this is that the {{t|..."

2022-10-18T19:39:51Z

Created page with "Grammatical structures are called '''opaque'''<ref>This is Toaq or loglang jargon, not linguistics jargon.</ref> when they block inner quantifiers from moving up to the front of the outer clause like normal. For example, object-incorporating verbs are said to be opaque: quantifications in phrases like {{t|po tu poq}} are restricted to a ficticious small "{{t|po}} + object clause", rather than the encompassing clause. Another way to think about this is that the {{t|..."

New page

Grammatical structures are called '''opaque'''<ref>This is Toaq or [[loglang]] jargon, not linguistics jargon.</ref> when they block inner quantifiers from moving up to the front of the outer clause like normal.

For example, object-incorporating verbs are said to be opaque: quantifications in phrases like {{t|po tu poq}} are restricted to a ficticious small "{{t|po}} + object clause", rather than the encompassing clause.

Another way to think about this is that the {{t|tu}} doesn't leave the ''definition'' of the new verb created by {{t|po tu X}}.

Thus {{t|po tu pỏq}} always means "[∀P: poq(P)] ___ is P's", or in English: "___ is everyone's".

And thus {{t|<u>po tu pỏq</u> sa kủa}} means "some rooms <u>are everyone's</u>", regardless of the other quantifiers in the sentence, and not something like "∀[P: poq(P)] ∃[K: kua(K)] K is P's."

== Notes ==
<references />