Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.21;
Message-ID: <52CB4C9A.201@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 01:38:50 +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>	<52CB2C21.5080902@gmx.de>	<CAO7tK2ey3MMH6ZyNj9iTxRR+hcgEdZve1ykLbrx0OrgQ5w+Fkw@mail.gmail.com>	<52CB35E6.9000601@gmx.de> <CAO7tK2eCCF6SqOSWsUf9OkGCzyRG+-CcAkZBwmHY3fVb-5fjVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2eCCF6SqOSWsUf9OkGCzyRG+-CcAkZBwmHY3fVb-5fjVg@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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
> What was it in English? I thought it would be something like "I'll do
> all I can for you" rather than "I'll make sure everything that can be
> done for you gets done".

You're right, it's "I'll ask Oz to do all he can for you".

But don't you think it actually results in the same claim? Doing all he 
can can include zukte lo ka gasnu as well, so the question is just 
whether or not to have it as the main selbri. I'm not too attached to 
the way it currently stands, nor do I have any strong preference for 
either sentence, but I see no problem at all with the {gasnu lo jai se 
kakne} version.

> In any case, I'm just not too happy with "jai". The way I understand it,
> it is used for sumti raising, i.e. extract an argument from a
> subordinate bridi in the x1 of a selbri and raise it to become the first
> argument of the selbri. Here you seem to use it to create an event out
> of a property?

What things can {se kakne}? Properties.
What things can {jai se kakne}? Everything, including events. All we 
know is that it appears somewhere inside the abstraction (X jai se kakne 
~= kakne lo ka co'e X (what's actually happening in the abstraction is 
{fai}'s job to specify)).

Thus, a {jai se kakne} can {se gasnu}.

ro da ka'e jai se kakne
lo se gasnu ka'e jai se kakne
lo jai se kakne ka'e se gasnu
la .oz. cu gasnu lo jai se kakne

Because they are both events.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o


-- 
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 email 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.