From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Sun Jun 19 11:57:53 1994 Message-Id: <199406191557.AA23276@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Sun Jun 19 11:57:53 1994 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: sumti categories X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO > 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