Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52CBE3CC.4080308@gmx.de>
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>
	<52CB4C9A.201@gmx.de>
	<CAO7tK2eNRkYAdoFfeZ0Gu2s4dy+6kYDX-0xUZjmRf0-hnuZuxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52CBE3CC.4080308@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 12:00:36 -0200
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fO9H9F-A8bBFvxXWHVNRxKqV-xsV5UYQEBDHbQktuT+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] Abstractors
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@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=001a113496aaffd67604ef61ccd3
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a113496aaffd67604ef61ccd3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:23 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
>
>> For me, the important difference between zukte and gasnu is that the x1
>> of zukte has to be the agent of the x2 event, whereas for gasnu the
>> agent of x2 is usually someone other than the x1 of gasnu.
>>
>
> Usually, though it needn't be so. There are several {sez-___-gau} lujvo,
> and the gasnu1 can have a passive/patient role in the gasnu2.


Yes, a better way to put it may be this: zukte1 is the agent of the
relationship in zukte2, which should therefore be agentive. OTOH, gasnu1
adds an agent place to the relationship in gasnu2, which may not even be
agentive, and if it is agentive the two agent places will not automatically
coalesce (although they could of course be filled with the same value).


> Let's take {lo nu krici lo du'u virnu} as an example.
>
>   (a) la .oz. cu kakne lo ka ce'u gasnu lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du'u ri
> virnu
>   (b) la .oz. cu kakne tu'a lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du'u ri virnu
>   (c) lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du'u ri virnu cu jai se kakne la .oz.
>   (d) lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du'u ri virnu cu jai se kakne la .oz. fai
> lo ka ce'u gasnu ce'u
>
> From (a) to (c), the event gets extracted from within the property, and
> (d) restates the predicate that connects the extracted event with the
> {kakne} predicate using {fai}. All four sentences should mean the same.


Well, in going from (a) to (b) you lose some information, you lose the
explicit "gasnu". (b) could just as well come from "la oz cu kakne lo ka
ce'u lifri lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du'u ri virnu", or many other things.
And I guess that's the source of my problem. I don't read "lo jai se kakne"
as "events (one) can bring about", I read it as "things involved in
relationships that can happen".

I guess with "... zukte ro lo se kakne be vo'a" you get the full meaning
directly, whereas with "gasnu ro lo jai se kakne be vo'a" you need a longer
route to get to the full meaning: "... gasnu ro da poi ... kakne lo nu
gasnu ke'a" (not sure which pronoun goes in the second ... to point to the
first one).

But okay, I understand how it works now, although I find it somewhat
complicated.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.

--001a113496aaffd67604ef61ccd3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:23 AM, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">la .xorxes. cu cusku di&#39;e<br>
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
For me, the important difference between zukte and gasnu is that the x1<div=
 class=3D"im">
of zukte has to be the agent of the x2 event, whereas for gasnu the<br>
agent of x2 is usually someone other than the x1 of gasnu.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
Usually, though it needn&#39;t be so. There are several {sez-___-gau} lujvo=
, and the gasnu1 can have a passive/patient role in the gasnu2.</blockquote=
><div><br></div><div>Yes, a better way to put it may be this: zukte1 is the=
 agent of the relationship in zukte2, which should therefore be agentive. O=
TOH, gasnu1 adds an agent place to the relationship in gasnu2, which may no=
t even be agentive, and if it is agentive the two agent places will not aut=
omatically coalesce (although they could of course be filled with the same =
value).</div>
<div><br></div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Let&#39;s take =
{lo nu krici lo du&#39;u virnu} as an example.<br>
<br>
=A0 (a) la .oz. cu kakne lo ka ce&#39;u gasnu lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du=
&#39;u ri virnu<br>
=A0 (b) la .oz. cu kakne tu&#39;a lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du&#39;u ri vi=
rnu<br>
=A0 (c) lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du&#39;u ri virnu cu jai se kakne la .oz=
.<br>
=A0 (d) lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du&#39;u ri virnu cu jai se kakne la .oz=
. fai lo ka ce&#39;u gasnu ce&#39;u<br>
<br>
From (a) to (c), the event gets extracted from within the property, and (d)=
 restates the predicate that connects the extracted event with the {kakne} =
predicate using {fai}. All four sentences should mean the same.</blockquote=
>
<div><br></div><div>Well, in going from (a) to (b) you lose some informatio=
n, you lose the explicit &quot;gasnu&quot;. (b) could just as well come fro=
m &quot;la oz cu kakne lo ka ce&#39;u lifri lo nu la cinfo cu krici lo du&#=
39;u ri virnu&quot;, or many other things. And I guess that&#39;s the sourc=
e of my problem. I don&#39;t read &quot;lo jai se kakne&quot; as &quot;even=
ts (one) can bring about&quot;, I read it as &quot;things involved in relat=
ionships that can happen&quot;.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I guess with &quot;... zukte ro lo se kakne be vo&#39;a=
&quot; you get the full meaning directly, whereas with &quot;gasnu ro lo ja=
i se kakne be vo&#39;a&quot; you need a longer route to get to the full mea=
ning: &quot;... gasnu ro da poi ... kakne lo nu gasnu ke&#39;a&quot; (not s=
ure which pronoun goes in the second ... to point to the first one).</div>
<div><br></div><div>But okay, I understand how it works now, although I fin=
d it somewhat complicated.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxe=
s=A0</div><div><br></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 />

--001a113496aaffd67604ef61ccd3--