Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:58:09 -0200
Message-ID: <CALMa68oWfMcDbOOS+i=d5MLRZh_FzJC5H90sH092JZzWwHG6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] [oz] Abstractors
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303347c100cf7404ef545ba0
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Let me start with a very specific issue: The abstractors used
    in kakne2 appear to be inconsistent. For reference, some examples: (1) {la
    māxpre cu cčrtu te cānge gi'e kākne lo ka kųrji lo bārda te crčpu} (2) {na
    kākne lo nu fa'a ni'a klāma} (3) {mi na kākne lo nu gānse} (4) {cy kākne
   lo ka vėska du'i lo nu co'e ca lo dōnri} (5) {da poi ma'a kākne lo nu sėpna
    bu'u ke'a ze'a lo nėcte} (6) {lo nānmu cu kākne lo nu mųvgau sy zu'e ny po'o}
    (7) {mi kākne lo ka ru'u mųvdu tai lo xagdų'i be lo me lo pųrci moi} (8)
   {la tėnci mųdypre na kākne lo ka kārgau lo ri mōklu} (9) {my di'a kākne lo
    ka tāvla} [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (felipeg.assis[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

--20cf303347c100cf7404ef545ba0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Let me start with a very specific issue: The abstractors used in kakne2
appear to be inconsistent. For reference, some examples:

(1) {la m=E0xpre cu c=E8rtu te c=E0nge gi'e k=E0kne lo ka k=F9rji lo b=E0rd=
a te cr=E8pu}
(2) {na k=E0kne lo nu fa'a ni'a kl=E0ma}
(3) {mi na k=E0kne lo nu g=E0nse}
(4) {cy k=E0kne lo ka v=ECska du'i lo nu co'e ca lo d=F2nri}
(5) {da poi ma'a k=E0kne lo nu s=ECpna bu'u ke'a ze'a lo n=ECcte}
(6) {lo n=E0nmu cu k=E0kne lo nu m=F9vgau sy zu'e ny po'o}
(7) {mi k=E0kne lo ka ru'u m=F9vdu tai lo xagd=F9'i be lo me lo p=F9rci moi=
}
(8) {la t=ECnci m=F9dypre na k=E0kne lo ka k=E0rgau lo ri m=F2klu}
(9) {my di'a k=E0kne lo ka t=E0vla}

(grep counted 30 occurrences of {k=E0kne lo ka} and 10 of {k=E0kne lo nu})

I strongly believe that kakne2 should be a ka-abstraction.

It is as intentional as it can be. Chiefly, no event, real, or imaginary,
need exist for the kakne property to hold.

Even if you pose that there are "potential events" related to the ability,
no specific one is hardly relevant to the statement, but their common
characteristic, precisely encoded by a property.

I also believe that many people are confused by ka-abstractions with action
selbri (which kakne2 often are) because our archetypes of properties are
stagnant states such as "being red".

It really is a peculiarity of Lojban that the translations of "I am red"
and "I give you money" have such similar syntaxes. This is what makes {do
mo}, and {do ckaji ma}, mean at the same time "who are you?", "what have
you done?", "what are you doing here?", etc., where different possibilities
may be more salient depending on context.

By the way, there are other uses of {k=E0kne} that are more subtly related =
to
the issue. E.g.,

(10) {g=E0snu ro lo se k=E0kne be se va'u do}

I would adjust that to

(11) {ck=E0ji ro lo se k=E0kne be se va'u do}.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--20cf303347c100cf7404ef545ba0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>Let me start with a very specific issu=
e: The abstractors used in kakne2 appear to be inconsistent. For reference,=
 some examples:<br><br>(1) {la m=E0xpre cu c=E8rtu te c=E0nge gi&#39;e k=E0=
kne lo ka k=F9rji lo b=E0rda te cr=E8pu}<br>
(2) {na k=E0kne lo nu fa&#39;a ni&#39;a kl=E0ma}<br>(3) {mi na k=E0kne lo n=
u g=E0nse}<br>(4) {cy k=E0kne lo ka v=ECska du&#39;i lo nu co&#39;e ca lo d=
=F2nri}<br>(5) {da poi ma&#39;a k=E0kne lo nu s=ECpna bu&#39;u ke&#39;a ze&=
#39;a lo n=ECcte}<br>
(6) {lo n=E0nmu cu k=E0kne lo nu m=F9vgau sy zu&#39;e ny po&#39;o}<br>(7) {=
mi k=E0kne lo ka ru&#39;u m=F9vdu tai lo xagd=F9&#39;i be lo me lo p=F9rci =
moi}<br>(8) {la t=ECnci m=F9dypre na k=E0kne lo ka k=E0rgau lo ri m=F2klu}<=
br>(9) {my di&#39;a k=E0kne lo ka t=E0vla}<br>
<br></div>(grep counted 30 occurrences of {k=E0kne lo ka} and 10 of {k=E0kn=
e lo nu})<br><br></div>I strongly believe that kakne2 should be a ka-abstra=
ction.<br><br></div>It is as intentional as it can be. Chiefly, no event, r=
eal, or imaginary, need exist for the kakne property to hold.<br>
<br></div>Even if you pose that there are &quot;potential events&quot; rela=
ted to the ability, no specific one is hardly relevant to the statement, bu=
t their common characteristic, precisely encoded by a property.<br><div>
<div><div><div><div><div><br></div><div>I also believe that many people are=
 confused by ka-abstractions with action selbri (which kakne2 often are) be=
cause our archetypes of properties are stagnant states such as &quot;being =
red&quot;.<br>
<br>It really is a peculiarity of Lojban that the translations of &quot;I a=
m red&quot; and &quot;I give you money&quot; have such similar syntaxes. Th=
is is what makes {do mo}, and {do ckaji ma}, mean at the same time &quot;wh=
o are you?&quot;, &quot;what have you done?&quot;, &quot;what are you doing=
 here?&quot;, etc., where different possibilities may be more salient depen=
ding on context.<br>
<br></div><div>By the way, there are other uses of {k=E0kne} that are more =
subtly related to the issue. E.g.,<br></div><div><br>(10) {g=E0snu ro lo se=
 k=E0kne be se va&#39;u do}<br><br></div><div>I would adjust that to<br><br=
></div>
<div>(11) {ck=E0ji ro lo se k=E0kne be se va&#39;u do}.<br></div><div><br><=
/div><div>mu&#39;o<br>mi&#39;e .asiz.<br></div><div><br></div></div></div><=
/div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--20cf303347c100cf7404ef545ba0--