From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Mar 26 13:19:33 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DFIgo-0005iz-Ih for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:19:26 -0800 Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DFIgn-0005ib-4V for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:19:26 -0800 Message-ID: <20050326211853.62208.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:18:53 PST Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:18:53 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Re[2]: tanru To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9672 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > pc: > > But, of course, {mutce} doesn't have two > opposite > > senses. > > Okey, just a very exotic sense. Probably true. > > Or, of course, comes from "very" (and the > like in > > other languages) which can extend in any > > direction towards an extreme. > > But "very" is always unidirectional. "Very hot" > can only mean hotter > than normal. {mutce lo ka glare} can in theory > mean "very hot" or > "barely hot". In practice, only "very hot". But, even if fixed for a given word, it can go in either direction, depending on the word. I suppose that {mutce} generalizes on this a bit. > > As noted, I have some trouble thinking of > eating > > as a property and most especially as a > proprty > > that of itself can be comparative or > superlative, > > etc.: "He very eats" -- even "He extremely > eats" > > -- doesn't compute out to anything in any > literal > > way and as an idion makes most sense as being > > about amounts of eating (in one reading or > > another). > > Those would be the most likely ones, yes: > > mutce lo ka ce'u citka lo klani be li xo kau > Extreme in how much they eat. > > mutce lo ka ce'u xo kau roi citka > Extreme in how often they eat. > > {mutce lo ka [ce'u] citka} is not explicit > about what exactly is being graded. The point is just that it is graded, not merely a property. > > > If you put {le nu citka} in x2, how do you > know > > > what role the x1 > > > of mutce/dukse plays in that event? > > > > Presumably as subject, just as it would with > {ka} > > -- or {ni} for that matter. > > But you can't use {ce'u} with {nu}. So you have said before, but I still don't see 1) that this is in CLL, which calls {ce'u} a focus in an *abstraction*, not merely a property abstraction and 2) if it is somehwere forbidden with nu} why this is not just a very careless mistake, to be corrected in the current process. There is surely as much a function from objects to events as there is from objects to properties and, like the case with properties, these functions are the natural things to use for the general notion. > > And we have said nothing about the kinds of > > extreme -- in eating say -- that *don't* deal > > with quantities: eating chocolate-covered > > grasshoppers, for example, or raw mokey > brains > > scooped out of the skull which is sliced off > at > > the table. those would seem to call for > > 9indirect questions in the second what "is > > extreme in what he eats" or even, "in that he > > eats ..." (both of which look to be moving > toward > > events or at least propositions. > > mutce lo ka ce'u citka lo mo kau > Extreme in what kind of thing they eat. > > > Maybe when BPFK > > gerts around to vocabulary word like this > need a > > second look. > > Removing the "in direction" place would > certainly bring it more in line > with usage. > Yes, and dropping the requirement for a {ka} abstraction would bring it more in line with what it wants to say (I gather).