Message-Id: <m0qFPFS-00001WC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 19 Jun 1994 11:57:26 EDT
Reply-To:     Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: sumti categories
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1604
Lines: 38

> JL> But responding to you as a person means that I'm responding to something
> JL> you said or did. Responding to you as an event, means that I'm responding
> JL> to you happening, whatever that means. (From what you say, "I happen"
> JL> means something like "I began to exist, am existing, and will cease to
> JL> exist".) Which of those two meanings is expressed by {mi spuda do}?
>
> The latter.  Or at least, if you are responding to something I said or did,
> it is only within the context of that saying/doing being a manifestation
> of MY existence.

In that case, I suggest removing the "person/object" option from the
definition of the x2 of {spuda}, because it will encourage sumti raising.


> I guess I may be saying that "mi" as an event is an
> alternative to "lenu mi fasnu", which in turn is usuallyy pragmatically the
> same as "lenu mi zasti".

To me, this makes no sense. Can events talk, walk, dance and make love?

        le nu mi zasti cu klama le zarci

How can {mi} be the same as {le nu mi zasti}? (A dangerously recursive
definition, to make it worse)


> Well, if I am an event, then certainly you are an event as well.  When our
> lives intersect (after the manner of the English idiom), I see it as
> referring to these two events interacting and mutually affecting each other.
>
> Does that help?

Not really. I meant to ask for a sentence in Lojban that shows how this
idea is nicely expressed. In every Lojban sentence that I can think, if
I replace {mi} by an event, it makes no sense. Persons can interact and
mutually affect each other without being events.

Jorge