Received: from mail-ye0-f188.google.com ([209.85.213.188]:38158) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U1Vg5-0003IU-Or; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:30:18 -0800 Received: by mail-ye0-f188.google.com with SMTP id r11sf384610yen.25 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:30:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=ojKZBAvK0xttyzpAGy5Gy/IQECXOZqpM4no3B5wp/qE=; b=UZP0RlCXo6NK4slSlAveY7Z550ybqgFBnH1TvW2Aps4ufewQq8vqiHSC9DbkEO6Aw4 B6b8O9d1aGdyj222YlAqZelPjtfkbJ6dUbvSdIMkfct9qZKQ/TQ0U7BbAd5Sx5Fs/R0F mhDAxHhsRU8Fr+dggPSxhzEXg/i1l2vYgCnsuEbTUiPU4sJTkhZc0CmVsX/itsYuANq3 HR6tUOJhOALMa8pCLHaGB0m92w359S2BIS471bZXihTmbvb87ka5sgOOBverjU0THhEk 7KU9CLybO9yPORiG3P83EGXpBdShjX2mzYsOCHSp646I1dwX2ge0IDWKWUcrVFlXQMhh HfJA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=ojKZBAvK0xttyzpAGy5Gy/IQECXOZqpM4no3B5wp/qE=; b=XdOuWmpsMeyAwT1zGnFmtFOMERbUKTsIuMBNFjkS5HRZ4rhnAeN3RMsCvW9YizzuDZ me+fkpByvWPpiPJJAJKCj+m/YxPuXoE4F0ozX9T3Jks9NWOwqXnR+8o2FoHn60fvFDb/ hsgs2LmjwnIK/n1XNakPzKfdfgpYT1sufZCDiNzAdA2nvJAoVO50Y2pi28Exr6N/llAV zsrueOZv+DqMVIG5CULx2euCrT2iDmdVuqjAdII5U52pOP8bbj1d1rimSqhhljQpMU+E O6eS8Y0UEgxtw6wLwYRgCNJhxgszbCtAN8tILFjhYfpss65v7OkI+xfZo0mO9hHoUfvL 8eeg== X-Received: by 10.49.48.41 with SMTP id i9mr1378187qen.36.1359783007292; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:30:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.71.115 with SMTP id t19ls1463399qeu.20.gmail; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:30:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.15.100 with SMTP id w4mr1380201qec.26.1359783006131; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:30:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:30:05 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <88ff2b8e-3289-4df0-a88c-01ad3d71998f@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References:

Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Place structure "types" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_915_30998330.1359783005733" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_915_30998330.1359783005733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Saturday, February 2, 2013 2:45:47 AM UTC+4, Ian Johnson wrote: > > Allowing for implicit raising leads to issues when you go to use articles > to extract places from such bridi. For example, you get {lo jenca} and now > if you allow for implicit raising you can't tell whether it's an event or a > concrete object. This makes it border on useless by itself because you > don't even know what sort of thing it is. Making the distinction with > tu'a/jai is quick and clarifies matters. (That said, the lack of > consistency in what the gimste deems to be raising and what isn't is a bit > of a problem. fenki is an example of this.) {lo se prami be mi} and {lo jai se prami be mi} is even a "worse" example. > mi'e la latro'a mu'o > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Judson Lester > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Jonathan Jones >> > wrote: >> >>> What would be the problem with "do jenca mi"? I suppose there's some >>>> elided abstraction that I could use in the x1 place to mean "some event >>>> related to you" - but why would that be neccesary? >>>> >>> >>> Simply because the English "You shocked me!" actually means "What you >>> just did shocked me!". This has to do with the issue "sumti raising", which >>> has been bandied about countless times throughout the years. >>> >> >> I've got two follow on questions, then: >> >> >> 1. The easy one: "tu'a do jenca mi" would be semantically valid, >> though? Maybe a little vague, but if you've just punched me in the face, >> maybe clear enough and readier to hand than "le nu do darxi fo le mi flira >> cu jenca mi" >> 2. More philosophical: granted that it doesn't make *sense* most of >> the time that do jenca - because people aren't shocking - why isn't the >> convention that such places raise their sumti automatically? Or is the >> idea that maybe there could be a brain-interacting object that fills the >> space? >> >> Come to think, would it be reasonable to say something like "lo sidbo >> jenca mi" or would it still need an abstraction related to 'lo nu sidbo fi >> mi' ? #2 in play as a "why not?" if not. >> >> Judson >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Lojban Beginners" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_915_30998330.1359783005733 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 2:45:47 AM UTC+4, Ian Johnson wrote:<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord= er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Allowing for implicit raising l= eads to issues when you go to use articles to extract places from such brid= i. For example, you get {lo jenca} and now if you allow for implicit raisin= g you can't tell whether it's an event or a concrete object. This makes it = border on useless by itself because you don't even know what sort of thing = it is. Making the distinction with tu'a/jai is quick and clarifies matters.= (That said, the lack of consistency in what the gimste deems to be raising= and what isn't is a bit of a problem. fenki is an example of this.)

{lo se prami be mi} and {lo jai se prami be mi} i= s even a "worse" example.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Fr= i, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Judson Lester <nya...= @gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at= 12:43 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

What would be the problem with "do= jenca mi"? I suppose there's some elided abstraction that I could us= e in the x1 place to mean "some event related to you" - but why would that = be neccesary?

Simply because the English "You shocked m= e!" actually means "What you just did shocked me!". This has to do with the= issue "sumti raising", which has been bandied about countless times throug= hout the years.

I've got two follow on questio= ns, then:

The easy one: "tu'a do jenca mi"= would be semantically valid, though? Maybe a little vague, but if yo= u've just punched me in the face, maybe clear enough and readier to hand th= an "le nu do darxi fo le mi flira cu jenca mi"

More philosophical: granted that it doesn't make *sense* most of the ti= me that do jenca - because people aren't shocking - why isn't the conventio= n that such places raise their sumti automatically? Or is the idea th= at maybe there could be a brain-interacting object that fills the space?
Come to think, would it be reasonable to say something like "lo s= idbo jenca mi" or would it still need an abstraction related to 'lo nu sidb= o fi mi' ? #2 in play as a "why not?" if not.

Judson
=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.co= m.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-b= eginners?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

------=_Part_915_30998330.1359783005733--