Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:51776)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBCs18T6BBoEqqAygg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1S3YyT-0007bE-LQ; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:21:11 -0800
Received: by ggmi2 with SMTP id i2sf1709488ggm.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:21:03 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBCs18T6BBoEqqAygg@googlegroups.com designates 10.68.226.136 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.226.136;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBCs18T6BBoEqqAygg@googlegroups.com designates 10.68.226.136 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBCs18T6BBoEqqAygg@googlegroups.com; dkim=pass header.i=lojban+bncCIfp7ILVEBCs18T6BBoEqqAygg@googlegroups.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.226.136])
        by 10.68.226.136 with SMTP id rs8mr9323665pbc.2.1330719663077 (num_hops = 1);
        Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:21:03 -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=SgzlJvN+RIS3bSdY31ag653y6OqVoupG6g0onWc2+8w=;
        b=ShbHDZb/yVeVSjp5PDFdXs1NO+w2I2xf/Zz9RFHJACpsrI5fsiMT8ZBAJc+oGxnUcQ
         dYtXcd35ttcW1Bo3qVg+ozwZ3IQ9MIzgg3GICbOXJbAx0vfw32j9I451NnCuZ/2YzCYy
         UZu5C7DQpXtKKSHqNUTDOIQKk8FKT1GnXxUfE=
Received: by 10.68.226.136 with SMTP id rs8mr2737297pbc.2.1330719660505;
        Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:21:00 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.74.5 with SMTP id p5ls6999357pbv.7.gmail; Fri, 02 Mar 2012
 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.129.169 with SMTP id nx9mr10636032pbb.2.1330719659888;
        Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.129.169 with SMTP id nx9mr10636030pbb.2.1330719659875;
        Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f48.google.com (mail-pz0-f48.google.com [209.85.210.48])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p7si8304123pbq.0.2012.03.02.12.20.59
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.48;
Received: by dadp13 with SMTP id p13so1577868dad.21
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 10.68.190.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.190.8;
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.190.8])
        by 10.68.190.8 with SMTP id gm8mr19751853pbc.146.1330719659839 (num_hops = 1);
        Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.190.8 with SMTP id gm8mr16500402pbc.146.1330719659547; Fri,
 02 Mar 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.189.133 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKOEKkRvn2XA5fC2rCcWNzdpZ7Evx950p7Jb3mUdmTAuU7zF-Q@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>
	<CALMa68rvDz5=pwpaQgSsTfkyx635zyot+ViXA9nGTOCNh+rp1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOEKkRvn2XA5fC2rCcWNzdpZ7Evx950p7Jb3mUdmTAuU7zF-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 17:20:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68pGiEk+9D5SRM1xDWT3_d7w9mYUhejDyVv18H81VNgUNQ@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 209.85.210.48 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: /

On 2 March 2012 14:48, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I do internally interpret nu
> abstractions as having a (possibly elided) ce'u in them (in other
> words, since they are in the same selma'o as ka, I don't see any
> reason to treat one different than the other in the "parts" they
> contain)

They are also in the same selma'o as {du'u}. There is no implicit
or explicit {ce'u} in du'u-clauses.

> 2012/2/21 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> tsani's proposition of defining {kakne} in terms of properties instead o=
f events
>> is quite neat. But I would take a step back before generalizing it to th=
e other
>> (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 stat=
e of
>> 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,=
 snada2
>> 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 particip=
ation
>> 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 i=
s
>>> kakne, bilga, fuzme, etc. is perhaps what's bothering us. [nu] makes se=
nse
>>> for concrete events that are somewhat dissociate from the rest of the b=
ridi,
>>> in the sense that there no "sumti-passing". Perhaps the real solution w=
ould
>>> 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 "cap=
able
>>> 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 whic=
h 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 =
are
>>> 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 referri=
ng 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> wro=
te:
>>>> > 2012/2/21 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>>>> >> On 21 February 2012 12:46, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>> >>> 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 sup=
port
>>>> >>>> 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 cl=
ause
>>>> >> 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 b=
y
>>>> > 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=
 cusku=97
>>>> > li'u=BB
>>>> > ni'o =ABlu na sai go'i =97sei la .alis. cu cusku=97 .i ny mutce .y l=
i'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 o=
ne
>>>> 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 mor=
e.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> 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 Gro=
ups
>>>> "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 Grou=
ps
>>> "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 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@googleg=
roups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/loj=
ban?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@googlegr=
oups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb=
an?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.