Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of tsani@mail.jerrington.me designates 192.99.166.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.99.166.45;
Message-ID: <556E0CF2.2080609@mail.jerrington.me>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:07:14 -0400
From: Jacob Thomas Errington <tsani@mail.jerrington.me>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
CC: sel.trimble@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {te fanza}?
References: <a27719b1-46ff-4b78-a3be-52b6f9a08e93@googlegroups.com> <556D2B77.4090405@mail.jerrington.me> <5bd02729-48b0-4c23-abec-a63413da8795@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5bd02729-48b0-4c23-abec-a63413da8795@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 06/02/2015 03:09 PM, la sel wrote:
> "This also constitutes a good use case for {jai}: .i lo sance cu jai 
> fanza mi".  Thanks for the reminder that x1 should be an abstraction.  
> Question: the definitions of fanza that I've seen call for an event in 
> x1. Does that allow for property abstractions?  I think I'm 
> comfortable with the notion that a property can annoy, even if an 
> event is required to "experience" most/all properties.
The idea of using a property here is that behind the scenes, the selbri 
constructs the relevant event and can make a claim as to whether or not 
that event occurs. Look at {kakne}, for instance. It makes no sense to 
say something like {.i mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise}, so we can 
conclude that kakne2 must involve kakne1, and decide that kakne2 must be 
a property abstraction. For example, {.i mi kakne lo nu ce'u limna} "I 
can swim". Behind the scenes, {kakne} constructs an event by applying 
the property to the x1, filling in {ce'u} with {mi}, produces {lo nu mi 
limna}, and claims that this event is possible. In particular, it makes 
the claim {.i lo nu mi limna cu cumki} and perhaps adds some connotation 
of agency/volition. (It turns out that you can think of a lot of 
words/phrases in lojban as formalizations of applying connotation to 
otherwise "plain" words/phrases.)

In the specific case of {fanza}, the predicate is stating that the x2 
having the x1 (as a property) is what is annoying to the x2.

As for what types of sumti that definitions call for, the type 
recommendations in the definitions are just that: recommendations. When 
it became understood that thinking of places as properties was a 
worthwhile way to express connections between places (e.g. how kakne2 
requires kakne1), many places for which the dictionary recommends 
event-abstractions began to be filled with property-abstractions in 
certain texts or channels (e.g. IRC).

.i mi'e la tsani 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/d/optout.