Received: from mail-wg0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:55831) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SzrH9-0008Pd-7p; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:37:37 -0700 Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13sf656451wgb.16 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:37:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-authenticated:x-provags-id:message-id :date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-y-gmx-trusted: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=CosAsBDqsU1SOjFJmznGrG9Pt5jRgDQ7zyUVksWEKLc=; b=OmUQySPVydEPASMe2lDeV+kpo1h/tmzrmYl0i11Zaxikf95wc7+1Nj7zyBi0CKO8Sz bafFOhmTDKmN4mgRH5QRgGOejMAbpy8BW3SFfA6vcbnr+4GHEoiRPRqWFY2v3eBzoGU8 kRf6q6HT3alWEJaeSVEwJwDtIIJdbHrY9/kd8= Received: by 10.180.106.135 with SMTP id gu7mr260778wib.4.1344613035650; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:37:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.96.67 with SMTP id dq3ls1736783wib.1.gmail; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.88.195 with SMTP id bi3mr520968wib.3.1344613034943; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.88.195 with SMTP id bi3mr520967wib.3.1344613034930; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net. [213.165.64.22]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id cx9si1011992wib.0.2012.08.10.08.37.14; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=213.165.64.22; Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2012 15:37:14 -0000 Received: from p57A08B35.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.33]) [87.160.139.53] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 10 Aug 2012 17:37:14 +0200 X-Authenticated: #54293076 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+iYflEESqicYkcobCnmAEaz4sa9M4x/T+Wz+cktd 0asDnbdjvp0kxa Message-ID: <50252AA7.6070301@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:37:11 +0200 From: selpa'i User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention References: In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060104080307060104070504" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060104080307060104070504 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Am 10.08.2012 16:54, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna: > If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then why > there is no gismu for "intention"? > Just {zukte djica}? Just a metaphorical tanru? Or a lujvo again > derived from {djica}? > And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not predicates in a > *predicate language*? .ai = zukte Someone does something (zukte2) for some purpose (zukte3), all of which is intentional. The purpose (zukte3) of action z2 is what their intention is in doing zukte2. (Wow, that is horribly phrased.) Maybe an example will be helpful. .ai mi na za'u re'u citka lo rectu ~= mi zukte fi lo nu na ze'u re'u citka lo rectu You could ask what the zukte2 would be in such cases. I think, often zukte2 and zukte3 can be identical. The action is also the intention, that is, the action is 'intentional'. mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo -- 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=en. --------------060104080307060104070504 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Am 10.08.2012 16:54, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:
If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then why there is no gismu for "intention"?
Just {zukte djica}? Just a metaphorical tanru? Or a lujvo again derived from {djica}?
And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not predicates in a predicate language?

.ai = zukte
Someone does something (zukte2) for some purpose (zukte3), all of which is intentional.
The purpose (zukte3) of action z2 is what their intention is in doing zukte2.  (Wow, that is horribly phrased.)
Maybe an example will be helpful.

.ai mi na za'u re'u citka lo rectu
~=
mi zukte fi lo nu na ze'u re'u citka lo rectu

You could ask what the zukte2 would be in such cases. I think, often zukte2 and zukte3 can be identical. The action is also the intention, that is, the action is 'intentional'.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

--
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=en.
--------------060104080307060104070504--