From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Sep 24 22:14:40 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 25 Sep 1993 02:17:12 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 25 Sep 1993 02:17:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199309250617.AA13214@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2696; Sat, 25 Sep 93 02:15:17 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8569; Sat, 25 Sep 93 02:18:05 EDT Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1993 02:14:40 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: TECH: input on gismu place structures wanted - sumti raising? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: 3 new posers on the gismu place structures: sarcu - JCB's 1975 equivalent appears to have a du'u (neither nu nor object) defined for x1 (though he had no real way to express a du'u). It appears in any case that x1 is a sumti raising, but should the type of abstraction be limited to a du'u? (I am coming to think of a du'u abstract as a second order abstract: ledu'u broda = lenu lenu broda cu fatci - with the implication that any other abstract is a sumti raising from a du'u place) His wording: x1 is a factually necessary condition for event/process x2 Current Lojban: sarcu sa'u necessary x1 is necessary/required for continuing state/process x2 under conditions x3 (cf. cmavo list sau, nitcu) =================== sidbo currently has an x3 "thinker" sidbo sib si'o idea x1 (idea abstract) is an idea/concept/thought about x2 (object/abstract) by thinker x3 (cf. ciksi, jijnu, mucti, jinvi, nabmi, pensi) Is a thinker necessary to an idea (and/or is this a philosophical, i.e. world-view question that we want to avoid)? It is likely that for ideas, my concept of a broda (or a nu broda or a ka broda) will be different from yours or anyone else's - hence the specifics/identity of an idea in x1 of sidbo is indeed constrained by a speaker. But we also have a thinker-independent usage of "concept" (I think %^) in such a sentence as "a concept of beauty is necessary for Civilization" (which also is a good test sentence for sarcu, BTW - what is the du'u if it must be a du'u in x1). For this sentence, a concept of beauty that is specific to a single thinker is clearly NOT what is necessary for civilization, but rather some shared concept is what is implied - some thinker-independent concept. I don't think zi'o deletion is the answer to this, and we can add the thinker in using pensi. But something seems flawed about this argument to both me and Nora - that there is indeed a necessary x3 thinker in order to have a sidbo. What do others think: what is le sidbo be zo sidbo bei do. =========== cedra - This one may also be a sumti raising of a more obscure sort. cedra era x1 is an era/epoch/age characterized by x2 (event/property/interval) (cf. ranji, temci, citsi) Most often, we would want to put a thing or an event in x2, and the thing would be a sumti-raising - it is that thing's existence, or predominance, or popularity, that is the characteristic. But an interval is a non-abstract as well. Is it a sumti-raising to express an interval in x2? Nora thinks not; I'm not sure. If an interval were ALWAYS the starting and ending points of the era, there would be something at least abstraction independent about such an interval. But "the modern era" is generally characterized by containing some interval within it, but is not limited to it. The "Revolutionary Era" in the USA is not limited to the exact years of the Revolutionary War, though the latter is a plausible "interval" that one might put in x2, given the wording. Would merely a clarification of the wording (interval from start to end) be sufficient? have fun. (Anyone wanna make some more eaton lujvo yet???) lojbab