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
=A0 {mi gleki so'i lo nu mi klama lo zdani be mi}

Actually, quantifying over events like= that has various problems, namely that the zo'e inside it are magicall= y changing. In Lojban, every event is unique, but as humans we roll them to= gether.=A0

In reality, what's happening when you quantify over an event like = that, you want to make a whole bunch of slightly different events: the even= t of going home on Monday, and the one of Tuesday, and the one on Wednesday= , etc. Each of these events in unique.

It seems like a predicate logic sentence would be best to describe thi= s, and ultimately moves the quantifier scope higher: {.i so'i da zo'= ;u mi gleki lo ka klama lo zdani ca da} "For many X, I am happy to go = home at X." This ultimately creates many properties of going home, for= each of which it is asserted that the speaker is happy about that.

=A0

Also, your
=A0 {mi gleki lo ka se li'i do citka lo plise} instead of
=A0 {mi gleki lo nu do citka lo plise}
is like
=A0 {mi klama lo stuzi be lo zdani be mi} instead of
=A0 {mi klama lo zdani be mi}
or
=A0"I saw an image of the sun setting" instead of
=A0"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 o= r short
is his/her body, not his/her friendliness.

<= div>As I explained, the general benefit of making places infinitive-places = with {ka} is to make jvajvo more commonplace. As it stands, we frequently d= rop "repeated" places that it would be nice to still have. Recons= ider my examples of {ctidji}. Using current nu-based djica, there is no way= to get both meanings in separate lujvo. Making the lujvo always drops the = other one. If we define ctidji with a place merger, we can't recover ct= idji without that merger.

Also, stuzi1 and stuzi2 are arguably *the same thing*, which can be tr= oubling. Let's take a look at another selbri for comparison. Although i= t's experimental, {ditcu} is the best example of this: "x1 is the = time-duration of x2." It turns out that both the x1 and x2 are events,= because in Lojban, there isn't actually a system for representing quan= tities, so we use objects (or events) as proxies for their relevant propert= ies. That being said, ditcu simply states an equivalency in the event-bridi= s' ze'a-tag: {ko'a ko'e go ditcu gi dunli lo ka makau jai z= e'a fasnu fai ce'u}. Now to get back to stuzi, does stuzi simply st= ate an equivalency in the objects' bu'u-tag ? {ko'a ko'e go= stuzi gi dunli lo ka makau jai bu'u me ko'a} ? I'm not entirel= y sure. It doesn't really look like it, because that means I get to say= things like {.i lo zdani be mi ca stuzi mi}, which shouldn't really ma= ke sense. However, that being said, *what* kinds of things can we even *put= * in stuzi1 ?