.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

There are some selbri, say kakne, where {zo'e} in = the abstraction kakne2 breaks the meaning in some way, such as {mi kakne lo= nu do citka lo plise}. IMO selbri that get *weird* when there's no ce'u sh= ould have {ka}.

Furthermore, nu+ce'u is strange to me, because {ce'u} m= arks an argument slot in a function, but {nu}, et al., abstractions are nev= er function-abstractions. As I detail in my analysis of abstractors, there'= re two classes of abstractors, namely function-abstractors and non-function= -abstractors. It gets a bit fuzzy eventually, because some abstractors are = function when they contain {ce'u}, but can equally not contain {ce'u}. {ni}= is an example of such an abstractor:

{.i mi zmadu do lo ni xendo} vs {.i lo ni mi prami do c= u zmadu lo ni do nelci lo mlatu kei du bu} (du bu is the identity function)= .

The advantage of not allow {ce'u} inside {nu} is= that {nu} are as a result completely self-contained entities. {lo nu mi do= cinba} forms one single object that doesn't depend on the containing bridi= .

As for {su'u}, it turns out that it's simply a vague ab= stractor, and that's it. It's a stand-in for any regular abstractor, and it= s type is completely context-dependent. Although this has never really happ= ened as far as I know, it would, however, be possible to create new types o= f abstractors by means of su'u2.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

On 5 October 2012 21:47, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On F= riday, October 5, 2012 7:36:18 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
Am 05.10.2012 16:41, schrieb la gleki:
>
>
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:47:16 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
>
> Am 04.10.2012 17:02, schrieb la gleki:>
> >
> >> 1."I want to eat an ap= ple".
> >>
> >> The normal way uses an= infinitive compound:
> >>
> >> ^:i \ji /daw crw \xo p= lyw
> >>
> >> But you can also use a= n explicit infinitive:
> >>
> >> ^:i \ji /daw \vo crw \= xo plyw
> >>
> >> 2."I want you to eat a= n apple".
> >>
> >> ^:i \ji /gu pli \ju ^v= o crw \xo plyw
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> ^:i \ji ^ju /gu pli \c= rw \xo plyw
> >>
> >
> > But I have a clear feeling that in both = sentences the same semantic
> > prime can be used. And this prime descri= bes "desire".
> > Lojban can replace {ce'u} with anything.= Natlangs can do the same.
> > gua\spi can't. {to zoi gy. I don't want = to criticize gua\spi
> anymore.
> > gy. toi}
>
> You cannot replace ce'u at all or else it's gone and= it's not a
> ka-abstraction anymore (or not a well-formed one).
>
>
> True. Still the same brivla can be used. Unlike gua\spi.

No, it can not. If you "ce'u-ize" the gimste, for instance by saying=20
that djica2 ba a ka (which is a bad example, but it illustrates the=20
point), then you will not be able to use it for "I want you to broda",= =20
because that's a different predicate that doesn't involve yourself in= =20
the abstraction.

Well, I'm = not sure if we should ce'u-ize gismu with {nu} abstractions.
But if do this for {djica} then it would be
1.{mi djica lo nu c= e'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 you do= n't" (if {go'i} is able to update the value of {ce'u} in the previous sente= nce, of course)

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

Well, well, I don't want someone= to stop learning gua\spi because "gua\spi is a crap. I know, la glek= i 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/-/WyFuvnW2QSEJ.

=20 To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@google= groups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/grou= p/lojban?hl=3Den.