Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.15;
Message-ID: <52CB2C21.5080902@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 23:20:17 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] Abstractors
References: <CALMa68oWfMcDbOOS+i=d5MLRZh_FzJC5H90sH092JZzWwHG6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68oWfMcDbOOS+i=d5MLRZh_FzJC5H90sH092JZzWwHG6Eg@mail.gmail.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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .asiz. cusku di'e
> Let me start with a very specific issue:

I'm sorry you had to write such a long post for what is going to be a=20
relatively simple answer.

> The abstractors used in kakne2
> appear to be inconsistent. For reference, some examples:
>
> (1) {la m=C4=81xpre cu c=C4=8Drtu te c=C4=81nge gi'e k=C4=81kne lo ka k=
=C5=B3rji lo b=C4=81rda te cr=C4=8Dpu}
> (2) {na k=C4=81kne lo nu fa'a ni'a kl=C4=81ma}
> (3) {mi na k=C4=81kne lo nu g=C4=81nse}
> (4) {cy k=C4=81kne lo ka v=C4=97ska du'i lo nu co'e ca lo d=C5=8Dnri}
> (5) {da poi ma'a k=C4=81kne lo nu s=C4=97pna bu'u ke'a ze'a lo n=C4=97cte=
}
> (6) {lo n=C4=81nmu cu k=C4=81kne lo nu m=C5=B3vgau sy zu'e ny po'o}
> (7) {mi k=C4=81kne lo ka ru'u m=C5=B3vdu tai lo xagd=C5=B3'i be lo me lo =
p=C5=B3rci moi}
> (8) {la t=C4=97nci m=C5=B3dypre na k=C4=81kne lo ka k=C4=81rgau lo ri m=
=C5=8Dklu}
> (9) {my di'a k=C4=81kne lo ka t=C4=81vla}
>
> (grep counted 30 occurrences of {k=C4=81kne lo ka} and 10 of {k=C4=81kne =
lo nu})
>
> I strongly believe that kakne2 should be a ka-abstraction.

Me too, although I don't have very strong feelings about it. I just=20
think it makes more sense.

The story is this: When I started translating Oz, I was still using {nu}=20
with predicates like {troci}, but some way in I finally made the switch=20
to {ka}. I thought I had replaced most {kakne lo nu} by now, but=20
apparently there still are a few left.

It is good that you bring this up, however, because I want people to=20
know that the intended form is indeed the {kakne lo ka} one, and=20
anything else in kakne2 is a left-over from before and should be=20
considered a typo.

I will list a few other predicates that I now thing should not use {nu},=20
but which I used to use with {nu} (please feel free to add cases where=20
these are used with {nu} to the list of errata spreadsheet):
kakne, troci, snada, cpedu, minde, zukte, nitcu, bilga, certu, ...

(keep in mind, though, that I do make intentional use of polymorphism=20
sometimes)

> By the way, there are other uses of {k=C4=81kne} that are more subtly rel=
ated
> to the issue. E.g.,
>
> (10) {g=C4=81snu ro lo se k=C4=81kne be se va'u do}

Yes. Same thing as before, though this sort of case is why I kept on=20
using {nu} with the likes of {kakne} and {troci}. I thought it was too=20
useful to be able to say {lo se troci cu rinka lo nu morsi}. I finally=20
got persuaded to change my mind, though, so this is no longer a sentence=20
I would defend as being entirely correct.

> I would adjust that to
>
> (11) {ck=C4=81ji ro lo se k=C4=81kne be se va'u do}.

I will change it to {gasnu ro lo jai se kakne be se va'u do}.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--=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.