Received: from mail-oa0-f58.google.com ([209.85.219.58]:34911) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U4coA-0004BY-BN; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:33 -0800 Received: by mail-oa0-f58.google.com with SMTP id j6sf1974492oag.13 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf :mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :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=L3c7uFfapB6nhQ1prqK5h4IstEDD7kC5sOLSpnS9DSI=; b=K/sF4yUlAj6hcHS77xwH/GrB52YQ+1pki0YA2N1oNSRjZXD2vCerTv0ZHtKH7Fh6kb xjk6u6HSVixPOxJTNBQIyr2Tc/TgWYwTmthgTqjCXeiAxuB7sMwKh+uiTzKQ9ONFd1U4 PL3wkCZz2fgTFqJftOWYi/b0JyP/bANzMz6ZbGwe9FIGjCWLA5qTNe4zkEmyZu0/ooOD VGxIDwsCW9lv7r6mRMOh75GW39IHynYAXsgr3nynWJPke2W0V36jNqdPq+IAEkU9mjrL Gpm9V8Q8N1Fd9RygI+gyuF8QTnjP1pm/G16xrF1ZetMlVi6QjGHibOZKQMi7reCytX/k DWag== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf :mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :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=L3c7uFfapB6nhQ1prqK5h4IstEDD7kC5sOLSpnS9DSI=; b=mA+7kYytbQpBICg/xR3CLzMP3QI5v2NKqmB6oLTEeMLcAh5sKviv6LYQwOdWngwExB 93M0G1FAqIs1vdZ2cSoo152brpHZB5zKZ5NqNWsrjJ9qgFTnswGoqtGs3OA+iJUoPn0b UOIZgxbfNNcJUxF3Ku8R3WIT2R7Uw7NXMWiYBlj9cxUlLL/p3++eB1eo98pYNwYejXIO Ks2cuWNTo9olZ5lIq9pkgi5QzKOVMElZsnQTNnayGLMMHyBgzKBCs1l/PrsV1tSVDp0Y dBPAKp2kZ6OcLp46mIDRbxXS3ivS68udpLcbd8d1v5ODWyUmZ9uXH3pW2iwzVayZUdbI 6QsQ== X-Received: by 10.50.161.233 with SMTP id xv9mr382737igb.15.1360525399818; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.169.3 with SMTP id aa3ls268268igc.41.canary; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.170.100 with SMTP id al4mr3912664igc.6.1360525399111; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.170.100 with SMTP id al4mr3912663igc.6.1360525399056; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ia0-x236.google.com (ia-in-x0236.1e100.net [2607:f8b0:4001:c02::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vg6si1065851igb.0.2013.02.10.11.43.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c02::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c02::236; Received: by mail-ia0-f182.google.com with SMTP id w33so5822820iag.13 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.11.229 with SMTP id t5mr10260908igb.65.1360525398940; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.177.1 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:43:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <63dcdf07-3c53-4967-b50e-e3c684b4db0b@googlegroups.com> <20130210031456.GF6270@samsa.fritz.box> <20130210130730.GG6270@samsa.fritz.box> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 16:43:18 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c02::236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / doi tsani I see things a bit different. I believe that kakne2 and djica2 should be abstracts ({ka} and {du'u}), but for their intensionality. gleki2, on the other hand, is as concrete an event as it can be, not an abstract property or proposition. Consider {mi gleki so'i lo nu mi klama lo zdani be mi} Also, your {mi gleki lo ka se li'i do citka lo plise} instead of {mi gleki lo nu do citka lo plise} is like {mi klama lo stuzi be lo zdani be mi} instead of {mi klama lo zdani be mi} or "I saw an image of the sun setting" instead of "I saw the sun setting", This extreme typing of sumti places just creates hindrances in expression without adding anything to the speaker's or listener's understanding of the world. I already know that it is my experience of an event that can bring me happiness about it, not somebody else's, and that what determines whether someone is tall or short is his/her body, not his/her friendliness. mu'o mi'e .asiz. On 10 February 2013 10:20, Jacob Errington wrote: > On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: >> > On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn wrote: >> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: >> > > > With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to >> > > > look >> > > for >> > > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki >> > > > ce'u}. >> > > >> > > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties? >> > > >> > >> > No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about >> > Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an >> > abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a >> > property >> > of that sumti. >> >> Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rather sure, >> it overrides quite some learning material, so you have to deal with >> alternative views as well.. >> >> > > That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is >> > > confusing. >> > >> > It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the type >> > restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive. >> >> > That being said, the gismu list simply tells us that the x2 must be an >> > abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state. >> > I >> > disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature, >> > am >> > entitled to use a ka-abstraction there. >> >> Yes, you are. but in {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u} you didn't say that >> the >> {ce'u} place is to be a ka-abstraction. Therefore, this can't just be >> translated as "to look for properties that make you happy", because "to >> look >> for events that make you happy" is at least an equally good translation. >> "to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be more fitting >> for all possible interpretations, I suppose. > > > I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made it > more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better overall. > >> >> >> Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event >> you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectly >> valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restrict >> the type of abstraction here, necessarily. >> > > Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some extra > verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the formal > argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a new > system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 is a > {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u. > When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place > typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well. > > {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}. > > The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is that is makes > producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the type -dji, the > jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (something I have yet > to believe should be a {ka}). > e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4 > Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban > definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur > on the same abstraction-level. > e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo > > Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, many > lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full > structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting > rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA > cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}. > > Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i mi > kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}. > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > > -- > 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. > > On 10 February 2013 10:20, Jacob Errington wrote: > On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: >> > On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn wrote: >> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: >> > > > With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to >> > > > look >> > > for >> > > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki >> > > > ce'u}. >> > > >> > > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties? >> > > >> > >> > No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about >> > Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an >> > abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a >> > property >> > of that sumti. >> >> Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rather sure, >> it overrides quite some learning material, so you have to deal with >> alternative views as well.. >> >> > > That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is >> > > confusing. >> > >> > It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the type >> > restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive. >> >> > That being said, the gismu list simply tells us that the x2 must be an >> > abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state. >> > I >> > disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature, >> > am >> > entitled to use a ka-abstraction there. >> >> Yes, you are. but in {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u} you didn't say that >> the >> {ce'u} place is to be a ka-abstraction. Therefore, this can't just be >> translated as "to look for properties that make you happy", because "to >> look >> for events that make you happy" is at least an equally good translation. >> "to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be more fitting >> for all possible interpretations, I suppose. > > > I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made it > more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better overall. > >> >> >> Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event >> you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectly >> valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restrict >> the type of abstraction here, necessarily. >> > > Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some extra > verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the formal > argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a new > system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 is a > {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u. > When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place > typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well. > > {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}. > > The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is that is makes > producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the type -dji, the > jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (something I have yet > to believe should be a {ka}). > e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4 > Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban > definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur > on the same abstraction-level. > e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo > > Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, many > lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full > structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting > rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA > cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}. > > Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i mi > kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}. > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > > -- > 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. > > On 10 February 2013 10:20, Jacob Errington wrote: > On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: >> > On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn wrote: >> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: >> > > > With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to >> > > > look >> > > for >> > > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki >> > > > ce'u}. >> > > >> > > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties? >> > > >> > >> > No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about >> > Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an >> > abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a >> > property >> > of that sumti. >> >> Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rather sure, >> it overrides quite some learning material, so you have to deal with >> alternative views as well.. >> >> > > That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is >> > > confusing. >> > >> > It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the type >> > restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive. >> >> > That being said, the gismu list simply tells us that the x2 must be an >> > abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state. >> > I >> > disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature, >> > am >> > entitled to use a ka-abstraction there. >> >> Yes, you are. but in {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u} you didn't say that >> the >> {ce'u} place is to be a ka-abstraction. Therefore, this can't just be >> translated as "to look for properties that make you happy", because "to >> look >> for events that make you happy" is at least an equally good translation. >> "to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be more fitting >> for all possible interpretations, I suppose. > > > I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made it > more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better overall. > >> >> >> Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event >> you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectly >> valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restrict >> the type of abstraction here, necessarily. >> > > Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some extra > verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the formal > argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a new > system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 is a > {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u. > When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place > typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well. > > {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}. > > The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is that is makes > producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the type -dji, the > jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (something I have yet > to believe should be a {ka}). > e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4 > Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban > definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur > on the same abstraction-level. > e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo > > Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, many > lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full > structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting > rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA > cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}. > > Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i mi > kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}. > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.