Underfilling - Revision history

Neuekatze: /* In other (quasi-)logical languages */ changed nazbi to klama :p

2024-12-05T19:05:56Z

In other (quasi-)logical languages: changed nazbi to klama :p

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 5 December 2024
Line 58:		Line 58:
	\|x1 is born to parents x2 at time x3 and place x4		\|x1 is born to parents x2 at time x3 and place x4
	\|-		\|-
	\|~~nazbi~~		\|klama
	\|x1 goes to x2 from x3 via x4 transported by x5		\|x1 goes to x2 from x3 via x4 transported by x5
	\|-		\|-

Neuekatze: added actual lojban gismu examples

2024-12-05T19:03:42Z

added actual lojban gismu examples

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 == In other (quasi-)logical languages ==
-In Lojban, underfilling is extremely common and undisputably part of the language. A big number of root words ("'''''gismu'''''") contain 4-5 object places, so you almost ''have'' to underfill in most cases, unless you don't want your sentences full of ''zo'e'' (explicit object place skipper). There are particles ''(fa fe fi fo fu'', all in word class '''FA''') that skip to a specific slot.
+In Lojban, underfilling is extremely common and undisputably part of the language. Even the most elementary root words ("'''''gismu'''''") contain 4-5 object places, so you almost ''have'' to underfill in most cases, unless you don't want your sentences full of ''zo'e'' (explicit object place skipper).
 {| class="wikitable"
 |+

Neuekatze: added section

2024-12-05T14:53:51Z

added section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 5 December 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:

	{{Example\|Laheq, ꝡä hạomoı jí, ꝡä jıq jí.\|That I think, entails that I exist.}}		{{Example\|Laheq, ꝡä hạomoı jí, ꝡä jıq jí.\|That I think, entails that I exist.}}

			== In other (quasi-)logical languages ==
			In Lojban, underfilling is extremely common and undisputably part of the language. A big number of root words ("'''''gismu'''''") contain 4-5 object places, so you almost ''have'' to underfill in most cases, unless you don't want your sentences full of ''zo'e'' (explicit object place skipper). There are particles ''(fa fe fi fo fu'', all in word class '''FA''') that skip to a specific slot.
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|+
			\|fa
			\|fe
			\|fi
			\|fo
			\|fu
			\|-
			\|1
			\|2
			\|3
			\|4
			\|5
			\|}
			Example: Let's assume there is a predicate ''klama'' that has 5 object places and you want to fill the 4th slot with ''Ѭ.'' Without the FA class particles you would have to say "''klama zo'e zo'e zo'e Ѭ''" which is just silly. You can use these particles to say "''klama fo Ѭ''" instead.


			In (New) Ithkuil, there is a case system that functions like object slots. The reference grammar just refers to them as case, even though you can say they are very close to being a weird kind of object slot. Underfilling is also always necessary to even speak the language, due to every verb technically being able to take 68 arguments (cases).

Takoda: Determiner phrases do not have to be underfilled. Verbs with two slots can use object incorporation.

2024-11-10T05:57:20Z

Determiner phrases do not have to be underfilled. Verbs with two slots can use object incorporation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 10 November 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:
	== Other contexts ==		== Other contexts ==
	=== Determiners ===		=== Determiners ===
	Even saying something like {{t\|sá chuq}} invokes our theory of underfilling, as {{t\|chuq}} does not have an object. So, does it mean "someone who eats it", or "someone who eats something"? Or does it simply involve the intransitive {{t\|chuq}}<sub>1</sub>? ~~(This almost definitely spells trouble for the "disallowing underfilling" idea~~.)		Even saying something like {{t\|sá chuq}} invokes our theory of underfilling, as {{t\|chuq}} does not have an object. So, does it mean "someone who eats it", or "someone who eats something"? Or does it simply involve the intransitive {{t\|chuq}}<sub>1</sub>? For words with two slots, this can be solved by using [[Object incorporation\|object incorporation]].

	=== Subclauses ===		=== Subclauses ===

Laqme: more

2024-05-30T14:53:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 30 May 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In logic or mathematics, there's no sensible way to "underfill" a relation. "Twelve is divisible by three" makes sense, but "Twelve is divisible" does not. So when we turn "I hear it" into "I hear", what is really going on?		In logic or mathematics, there's no sensible way to "underfill" a relation. "Twelve is divisible by three" makes sense, but "Twelve is divisible" does not. So when we turn "I hear it" into "I hear", what is really going on?

	== Verb families ==		== Theories of underfilling ==
			=== Verb families ===
	One explanation is that, for example, {{t\|huogaı}} is actually a "verb family" of three verbs in a trenchcoat:		One explanation is that, for example, {{t\|huogaı}} is actually a "verb family" of three verbs in a trenchcoat:

Line 20:		Line 21:
	This is tidy, but it doesn't gives us a predictable rule for what the intransitive version of a transitive verb means. In English, "I know" means "I know '''it'''" but "I eat" means "I eat '''something'''". Should this distinction be mindlessly carried over into Toaq if we define {{t\|dua}}<sub>1</sub> and {{t\|chuq}}<sub>1</sub> as above?		This is tidy, but it doesn't gives us a predictable rule for what the intransitive version of a transitive verb means. In English, "I know" means "I know '''it'''" but "I eat" means "I eat '''something'''". Should this distinction be mindlessly carried over into Toaq if we define {{t\|dua}}<sub>1</sub> and {{t\|chuq}}<sub>1</sub> as above?

	== Implicit arguments ==		=== Implicit arguments ===
	Another explanation is that when we underfill {{t\|huogaı}}, the remaining slots are filled with some implicit argument. But which? All of {{t\|sá raı}}, {{t\|báq raı}}, {{t\|ké raı}}, and a "vague definite reference" / pronoun seem to make sense in different situations.		Another explanation is that when we underfill {{t\|huogaı}}, the remaining slots are filled with some implicit argument. But which? All of {{t\|sá raı}}, {{t\|báq raı}}, {{t\|ké raı}}, and a "vague definite reference" / pronoun seem to make sense in different situations.

	== Disallowing underfilling ==		=== Disallowing underfilling ===
	An extreme idea is to ban sentences like {{t\|Huogaı jí}}, forcing the speaker to say something explicit and specific like {{t\|Huogaı jí sá}} or {{t\|Huogaı jí hóq}}. This is semantically watertight but annoying.		An extreme idea is to ban sentences like {{t\|Huogaı jí}}, forcing the speaker to say something explicit and specific like {{t\|Huogaı jí sá}} or {{t\|Huogaı jí hóq}}. This is semantically watertight but annoying.

			== Other contexts ==
			=== Determiners ===
			Even saying something like {{t\|sá chuq}} invokes our theory of underfilling, as {{t\|chuq}} does not have an object. So, does it mean "someone who eats it", or "someone who eats something"? Or does it simply involve the intransitive {{t\|chuq}}<sub>1</sub>? (This almost definitely spells trouble for the "disallowing underfilling" idea.)

			=== Subclauses ===
			Underfilling is typically not possible in a [[subclause]]:

			{{Example\| *Laheq, ꝡä moı jí, ꝡä jıq jí.\|(Attempted:) That I think, entails that I exist.}}

			The verb {{t\|moı}} is transitive. Given how [[self-termination]] works / because subclauses are "greedy", {{t\|ꝡä jıq jí}} ends up being the object of {{t\|moı}}, not of {{t\|laheq}}. Thus, this sentence actually means "That I think about that I exist, entails (it/something)."

			We can use the prefix {{t\|hạo}}, which turns verbs intransitive by applying whatever theory of underfilling we subscribe to:

			{{Example\|Laheq, ꝡä hạomoı jí, ꝡä jıq jí.\|That I think, entails that I exist.}}

Laqme: initial article

2024-05-30T14:32:41Z

initial article

New page

To '''underfill''' a verb is to provide it with fewer arguments than there are slots in its definition.

Using a transitive verb as though it were intransitive ({{t|Huogaı jí da.}}) or using an intransitive verb as though it were nullary ({{t|Loe ꝡo!}}) are both examples of underfilling.

The common consensus is that this '''is allowed''', but it's not so clear what exactly it means, and how it comes to mean that.

In logic or mathematics, there's no sensible way to "underfill" a relation. "Twelve is divisible by three" makes sense, but "Twelve is divisible" does not. So when we turn "I hear it" into "I hear", what is really going on?

== Verb families ==
One explanation is that, for example, {{t|huogaı}} is actually a "verb family" of three verbs in a trenchcoat:

<blockquote>
{{t|huogaı}}2: ___ hears ___. 
{{t|huogaı}}1: ___ hears. 
{{t|huogaı}}0: Some hearing happens.
</blockquote>

Depending on how many arguments we provide, {{t|huogaı}} selects a completely different lexical item.

This is tidy, but it doesn't gives us a predictable rule for what the intransitive version of a transitive verb means. In English, "I know" means "I know '''it'''" but "I eat" means "I eat '''something'''". Should this distinction be mindlessly carried over into Toaq if we define {{t|dua}}1 and {{t|chuq}}1 as above?

== Implicit arguments ==
Another explanation is that when we underfill {{t|huogaı}}, the remaining slots are filled with some implicit argument. But which? All of {{t|sá raı}}, {{t|báq raı}}, {{t|ké raı}}, and a "vague definite reference" / pronoun seem to make sense in different situations.

== Disallowing underfilling ==
An extreme idea is to ban sentences like {{t|Huogaı jí}}, forcing the speaker to say something explicit and specific like {{t|Huogaı jí sá}} or {{t|Huogaı jí hóq}}. This is semantically watertight but annoying.