From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Oct 15 12:57:43 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 15 Oct 1993 16:59:53 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 15 Oct 1993 16:59:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199310152059.AA21616@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5731; Fri, 15 Oct 93 16:57:27 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4593; Fri, 15 Oct 93 17:00:20 EDT Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 16:57:43 EDT Reply-To: Jorge LLambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge LLambias Subject: Re: TECH: deagentive place structures X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: la and cusku di'e > > #katna ka'a cut x1 (agent) cuts/splits/divides x2 (object) using > > #tool/blade x3 into pieces x4 5c 25 (cf. kakpa, sraku for cutting into > > #without division; plixa, dakfu, jinci, porpi, spofu, tunta, xrani) > > # x1 divides into pieces ... > > > > Don't change it. It'd become too close to {spisa}, and without agent, I'm > > not sure it'd be meaningful to speak of a tool, either. > > (1) I strongly advocate: > > x1 (blade) cut x2 (object) I like this one. > The notion of cutting is important, & without a blade there is no cutting. > However, if I cut my finger, there are no pieces, so the x4 would have > to be zihoed off, were it to remain as an argument of the gismu. Note > that I can be cut by flying glass (= the 'blade') with there being no > agent responsible. > > (2) I also suggest that for the meaning you suggest for katna, > a deagentive fendi > x1 divides into parts x2 by method x3 > will suffice. I note that sepli is already deagentive. > > "Cut into pieces" will then be katna zei fendi (zei gasnu). fendi zei katna (zei gasnu), please. > > #tisna tis fill 'stuff' x1 fills/stuffs x2 with material x3; x1 > > #inserts/pours x3 into x2 6f 35 (cf. culno, kunti, rinci, setca, culno) > > # x1 fills with material x2 > > > > Nope. That's {culno} > > I think culno is to do with the idea of being full, while a deagentive > tisna would be to do with a substance entering a container, quite > independently of whether the container becomes full. So fill = cram > (as in "cram the box with papers") would be culno zei gsnu), while > "pour water into the basin" would be tisna zei gasnu. So I support > the change, but suggest the structure and keyword: > > tisna substance x1 pours into container x2 This seems right. > > #tunta tun poke 'stab' x1 (agent) stimulates/pokes/jabs/stabs/prods x2 > > #(experiencer) with x3 [stimulus/pointed object] a 1 [stimulus need not > > #be physical object]; (cf. balre, dakfu, darxi, fanza, jicla, katna, > > #tikpa) > > # stimulus/object x1 stimulates x2 > This stimulate bit is grossly metaphorical. I like the "grossly" :) > I advocate: > x1 (pointed object) pokes x2 Sounds reasonable. > > #tunlo tul tu'o swallow x1 (agent/throat) swallows/engulfs x2 5c 2 (cf. > > #citka, pinxe) > > # Does your throat or you do the swallowing? This may be agent/object > > # confusion, or it may be a mass concept masquerading as metonymy > > > > Eek. Don't know what to make of this one (as the logician said to the > > pragmaticist); I guess keep it as is; we don't need to disentangle more than > > we are capable of... > > This is very interesting. In English we can swallow without swallowing > anything. Not even saliva? > This is a prime case where the x2 might need often to be > zihoed off. I tentatively suggest: > > tunlo x1 (agent) gulps > tistuho (tisna zei tuho) x1 (agent) swallows x2 > > (assuming my proposal for tisna) I don't like this change. I think {tunlo} is fine as it is.