Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]:59748)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBDrxpH6BBoEm_IEoQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1S033F-0003KV-4o; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:40 -0800
Received: by qafl39 with SMTP id l39sf9372480qaf.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:received-spf:mime-version: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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=5TRUyvUG2/vKYE/Dj4QViC8DP5OG+bwfqfUuF6aWIKI=;
        b=v9wmhZY3vnmMAGrYzeKmiUjUyARanzyACiZgRMW5NpdJ1385ZRqde07J63u598al9j
         AlDz6FZviutUQ87PjTMlSMoLNRdB2UoZ/B9U5I0SeBb7+Vt7piFCNP9sfQq8IfJ8+EIK
         BkP76F9ALy+jcJvp4IXiGi7vP5EksWvm6wBek=
Received: by 10.68.216.130 with SMTP id oq2mr421495pbc.6.1329881963925;
        Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:23 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.237.10 with SMTP id uy10ls302845pbc.3.gmail; Tue, 21 Feb
 2012 19:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.226.170 with SMTP id rt10mr2341779pbc.3.1329881963216;
        Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.226.170 with SMTP id rt10mr2341777pbc.3.1329881963206;
        Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f51.google.com (mail-pz0-f51.google.com [209.85.210.51])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6si19037903pbg.2.2012.02.21.19.39.23
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.51;
Received: by mail-pz0-f51.google.com with SMTP id y9so6697765dad.10
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 10.68.225.39 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.225.39;
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.225.39])
        by 10.68.225.39 with SMTP id rh7mr82598409pbc.104.1329881963191 (num_hops = 1);
        Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.225.39 with SMTP id rh7mr67921345pbc.104.1329881962269;
 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.19.74 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:39:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDU5hPz7R1rQ0AWWrsXGQ4r__K6qcFsZfQT7ijROmYUfng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f46d044287ca46463f04b94dcd1a@google.com>
	<22495153.974.1329738307546.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndy9>
	<CAAQ0imPnn6_yqZJHSFLZrgLApAmrqtHujT4W7RtFLVKd_F-w_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEimHHB6942hpHYHmJ0bTveMzhD+_ajbjOkKmrrhoaZcR2W1QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2ea0qsF84-W-fGPXDNvYvsFc5bR06LE74G4PEwT_YV8Yg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAQ0imMHxjDc+YJg8EvAQ_exegLb3_PbN6virCJWmjZ0-dJf3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2e1YrU26Rkw85Q6=jLEtyW2yXoxM8epdnBrnfFD=tw2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAQ0imMEJcLwF7Bd7n+y8rVJTRA3semEiGMs74AoDO2M+aYV=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAQ0imOc3VDYS96p0GPiHUKEsdWW18pS_xk_1BFtfJ4Cgj=epA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2c6TWAyCM0+oy4n162TsjA_mFdKZfn205Q6whNnR1KfFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68pkigQV_bEkFJNwWPXoJzizNNzEjMz57rvXqeLL_Skv6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2fOefDfg8EBgAVK1+CpiCz_BLzuz3Run=JktjwvXm9fRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68rA3UWedS3W_wwFwrR80OzWDtTYGXy-gXPXt-vRyTH-3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOQ8VDU5hPz7R1rQ0AWWrsXGQ4r__K6qcFsZfQT7ijROmYUfng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:39:22 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68rvDz5=pwpaQgSsTfkyx635zyot+ViXA9nGTOCNh+rp1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] ka'e/kakne & mapti/sarxe
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@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 209.85.210.51 as permitted
 sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

tsani's proposition of defining {kakne} in terms of properties instead of e=
vents
is quite neat. But I would take a step back before generalizing it to the o=
ther
(te) gismu mentioned by xorxes.

To me, the key point is whether we are talking about some specific event or
just about some kind of event.

Take {snada} for example. snada2 only refers to a general, abstract state o=
f
affairs, as "being king", or "taking a beautiful picture", so it is
enough to give
a property that x1 tries to attain. On the other hand, snada3 is clearly a
specific event, which results in a realisation of snada2.

Not having analysed every case, I can safely agree that at least kakne2, sn=
ada2
and places like "by method" should be filled by properties. {tadji} is
an interesting
case in which abstract properties seem to be the best fit for the x1,
x2 and x3, but
there is no specific sumti to which these properties are applied in
the definition,
suggesting that the original remark that kakne1 has an inherent participati=
on
in kakne2 is completely orthogonal to the point.

ta'onai
ki'esai tsani do ckaji lo na se kakne be mi

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 21 February 2012 22:17, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somehow I knew this thread might cause a massive debate, hopefully not of
> the proportions of that one concerning [zo'e].
>
> It seems to me as though [nu] being used in bridi of which the selbri is
> kakne, bilga, fuzme, etc. is perhaps what's bothering us. [nu] makes sens=
e
> for concrete events that are somewhat dissociate from the rest of the bri=
di,
> in the sense that there no "sumti-passing". Perhaps the real solution wou=
ld
> be to allow (or prefer) [ka] in these situations, when "sumti-passing" is
> applicable (which for [kakne] it almost always is).
>
> For example,
> mi kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise
> This creates a bridi a la [ckaji], which by the way, in my (and some
> others') opinion just reduces as such:
> mi ckaji lo ka ce'u blanu =3D=3D=3D mi blanu
> [kakne] on the other hand, would reduce into a "ka'e-bridi":
> mi kakne lo ka ce'u viska do =3D=3D=3D mi ka'e viska do
> (I'm preparing for mass disagreement :P )
> Of course, the reduced form is less precise in saying which is the "capab=
le
> sumti", unlike [ckaji], for which it's very obvious.
>
> (I'm not saying that ckaji is useless; it's very useful for selecting
> predicates applying to some sumti, with [lo se ckaji be ko'a], at least
> under my interpretation.)
>
> Also, when it comes to stacked properties/ce'u-enabled clauses, of which =
I
> don't consider [nu] to be a part to be honest, I'd figure that a
> non-subscripted ce'u is in the current bridi and that subscripted ones ar=
e
> 1-based, where 2 is the directly outer bridi. That is to say:
> [lo ka ce'u broda lo ka ce'u brode ce'u xi re]; {ce'u xi re} is referring=
 to
> broda1. Using [xi pa] would then parallel, in uselessness, [sexipa].
>
> mu'o mi'e la tsani
>
> 2012/2/21 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
>>
>> On 21 February 2012 15:29, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>> > 2012/2/21 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> >> On 21 February 2012 12:46, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I will suppo=
rt
>> >>>> the interpretation from xorxes.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't see our interpretations as being different.
>> >>
>> >> But there is a difference here, xorxes. Remember the sentence
>> >> =A0{mi kakne lo nu do citka},
>> >
>> > (which is equivalent to "mi kakne lo nu se citka do")
>> >
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >> which you would likely interpret as
>> >> =A0{mi kakne lo nu do citka mi},
>> >> while Pierre, who believes that kakne1 need not be a part of the clau=
se
>> >> in kakne2, even elliptically, would read it as what you write as
>> >> =A0{mi kakne lo nu do citka do'e mi}.
>> >
>> > (You meant remod, not Pierre, right?) I can get that reading too.
>> > That's as general (and vague) as it can get.
>> >
>>
>> (yeah...) I understand you can get that reading, but the point is that
>> your view that there is always an ellision happening when x1 is not
>> mentioned may lead to relevantly different guesses of the intended
>> meaning of a sentence under a given context. From remod's mail,
>> I would not say he agrees with
>> > But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by
>> > you"?
>> Do you, remod?
>>
>> >> Personally, I think that Pierre's reading is more in line with the
>> >> grammar.
>> >> At the same time, I really wish we used infinitives ({nu} + {ce'u}).
>> >
>> > Some people do use them like that. Personally, I'm undecided, but
>> > since "ce'u" is almost always elided anyway, I don't have much of a
>> > problem with it. It could potentially cause trouble when you have
>> > complex sentences involving both properties and events, for example,
>> > here's one from Alice:
>> >
>> > ni'o =ABlu xu do nelci la noltruni'u =97sei la mlatu cu lauble voksa c=
usku=97
>> > li'u=BB
>> > ni'o =ABlu na sai go'i =97sei la .alis. cu cusku=97 .i ny mutce .y li'=
u=BB .i
>> > ca ku .abu sanji lo nu la noltruni'u cu jibni trixe .abu gi'e tirna .i
>> > se ki'u bo di'a cusku =ABlu lo ka lakne fa lo nu ce'u jinga .i se ki'u
>> > bo na vamji lo temci fa lo nu mo'u kelci li'u=BB
>> >
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the only reasonable interpretation is the one
>> in
>> which the {ce'u} is attached to the {ka}, since lakne1 is not an
>> infinitive.
>>
>> In order to get that interpretation without looking at the definition
>> of {lakne},
>> are you assuming that {ce'u} is never attached to {nu}, as with {du'u}?
>>
>> Anyway, the means to disambiguate to which of nested abstractors a
>> {ce'u} corresponds is something that needs to be formally agreed upon,
>> and to that matter it is essential to decide whether {nu} counts. What
>> is the status of that?
>>
>> >> The fact that
>> >> =A0{mi kakne lo nu dansu},
>> >> is interpreted by some people as
>> >> =A0"There is dancing if I want.",
>> >
>> > I think almost everybody would interpret it as "mi kakne lo nu
>> > [mi/ce'u] dansu".
>> >
>> >> thus leaving the sentence open to mean
>> >> =A0"I have a gnome in my house that dances whenever I wish.",
>> >> really sucks.
>> >
>> > But the alternative (forbidding any kind of ellision) sucks even more.
>> >
>>
>> But the alternative _is_ to agree that there is an elision happening.
>> Accepting that the x1 need not be directly referenced in kakne2
>> is what forbids you to elide without blurring the meaning.
>>
>> mu'o
>> mi'e .asiz.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group=
s
>> "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.