1.{mi djica lo nu ce'u citka}

2.{mi djica lo nu do citka}

That's all I = want. But gua\spi's /daw/ can't do that.

We could = also say {mi djica lo nu ce'u citka i do na go'i} =3D "I want to eat but yo= u don't" (if {go'i} is able to update the value of {ce'u} in the previous s= entence, of course)

This is a *strenght* of gua\spi; its predicates are=20
semantically much clearer.

Well, well, I don't want someone to st= op learning gua\spi because "gua\spi is a crap. I know, la gleki told= me". :)

>
> What natlangs can and
> can't do has little relevance when discussing Lojban= ic topics such as
> ka-abstractions.
>
>
> Then gua\spi has little relevance too.

What? Gua\spi is not a natlang, and you brought up Gua\spi in the first= =20
place. Gua\spi's entire gimste is ce'u-ized, that's what it looks like.

>
>
>
> In Lojban, djica2 is a nu, not a ka. You could say t= hat djica should be
> polymorphic and allow both nu and ka, but I don't th= ink that's what
> you're saying, is it? (I don't know *what* you are s= aying).
>
>
> My only complaint that we have a nice shortcut of saying {du= 'u ce'u}
> but we don't have one for {nu ce'u}.

But ka is not a shortcut for du'u ce'u... ka is what you get if you hav= e=20
a du'u abstraction and add a ce'u to it.

>
> Why is it a nu? Because you can djica things that do= n't involve
> yourself. (Gua\spi's _daw_ is restricted to desiring= to do or be
> something, hence it's always like a Lojban ka. And t= hat's why the
> second
> example uses a different predicate.)
>
> Again, what is the difference between the Lojban and= the gua\spi
> sentence?
>
>
> Hopefully no semantic difference. Looks like Lojban just gives mor= e
> freedom in recombining the same words without drawing in extra pre= dicates.

Okay, but that wasn't even your original point. And as I tried to=20
explain above, you get seperate predicates if you ce'u-ize the gimste.= =20
One will be

x1 wants to be/do x2 (ka)

the other will be

x1 wants/wishes/desires that x2 (nu) happen

Is that what you want or not?

>
>
> Let's stop arguing and let's ce'u-ize gimste :).
>
> How the new ce'u-ized definitions of gismu should look like in ur = opinion?

Just look at gua\spi's gimste. It did everything right in that regard,= =20
but you have to remember that gua\spi is not Lojban, and not everything= =20
can be copied 1:1.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--=20
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

do=E1=BB=8B m=C3=A8lbi mlen=C3=AC'u
.i do c=C3=A0tlu ki'u
ma fe la x=C3=A0mpre =C5=ADu
.i do t=C3=ACnsa c=C3=A0rmi
gi'e s=C3=ACrji se t=C3=A0rmi
.i ta=E1=BB=8B bo pu c=C3=ACtka lo gr=C3=A0na ku

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Wy= FuvnW2QSEJ.
=20 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.
------=_Part_325_6717741.1349498849509--