Subject: RE: [lojban] Bringing it about that

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:14:59 +0100

> From: [email-masked]
> Sent: 13 April 2000 10:02
>
> The start is to Lojban "John made me hit him," which is pretty vague in
> English and Lojban lacks an equally vague form, requiring a choice among
> mukti (motivate -- whatever that is going to mean exactly), rinka (cause --
> apparently taken as a physical connection -- one suggestion was that John
> could only rinka it by taking my hand and hitting himself with it -- even
> electrode tricks are suspect), and some others which I either forget or don't
> clearly understand (necessitate?). And gasnu, agent.
> The focus was on, first, getting to John, since the causal words seem to
> require (quite rightly) events in both the cause and the effect places. That
> meant that "John" had to be subject raised in the subject position, a
> slightly odd case. And once it was entered, a deeper problem arose: if
> "John" had to be raised from, say, "John's laughing made me hit him" to get
> "John made me...," why doesn't "John's laughing" have to be treated as a
> raising, since it is presumably something about it that worked the effect
> "The fact that John's laughing was annoying made me..." And so on, ad inf.
> The practical solution, that "John" needs to be flagged because it is not an
> event name in a place that calls for one, seems ad hoc -- one the one hand,
> John IS an event by many definitions and, on the other hand, the fact that
> "John" doesn't fit should be marker enough, whereas "John's laughing" might
> be more misleading. And, of course, if we want to say that what is raised
> depends upon what the real motivator was, then we have to face the fact that
> that might be John (not as an event even), not something he did or was, and
> so the reaising might be inappropriate, even misleading.

I read this as a correct argument against (overzealous, overfastidious)
sumti-raising, and the followup messages from Jorge &, eventually, Lojbab
appear to concur. Was that the final consensus? I ask because Lojban
Central & associated pedagogues have traditionally made a big fuss about
so-called sumti-raising, which struck me as bogus. I therefore wonder
whether what John wd call its bogosity has now been recognized by the
politburo.

--And.