From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Fri Jul 29 16:28:08 1994
Message-Id: <199407292028.AA04524@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Fri Jul 29 16:28:08 1994
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la nitcion cusku di'e

> Well, consider kecti.
>
> .i mi kecti la xorxes lenu la xorxes .ei tavla la nitcion
> .i mi kecti la nitcion lenu la xorxes .ei tavla la nitcion
>
> The x2 is an argument of the x3. (Typically; I'd say it's safe to say
> it always will be at some level.)

Yes, everything has to do with everything at some level, but I see what
you mean, despite my ka darlu.


[nelci/pluka]
> But with nelci, you can like entities qua entities, indepedent of what
> they do.
> .i ka'e go'e .i mi nelci do .enai lenu do roroi darlu

(I think you meant {go'o} instead of {go'e})

> And the distinction doesn't look all that convincing any more, now that I
> stated it like that: is it that you can like someone without necessarily
> liking something they do?

I think I see the distinction now. I would say that the problem is in
allowing {le se nelci} to be an event.

Do these two mean the same thing:

        le nu mi roroi darlu cu na pluka do
        le nu mi roroi darlu cu na se nelci do

I think the second one is taking the event as an object, which is not
necessarily bad, but it is a kind of metaphoric use. The first should
be the normal one, and the gismu list shouldn't give "event" as one
of the options for the x2 of nelci.


>    --- since there is no obvious difference between {xy. simlu
> => lenu catra .y'y} and {.y'y simlu lenu se catra xy.} Well, um. There is a
> => difference, isn't there?
> =Only one of focus, which could be marked in some other way.
>
> I don't think it's just focus. Assume that .y'y ca'aza'a se catra. It makes
> sense to say xy. simlu lenu catra .y'y, but not .y'y simlu lenu se catra xy.

Why not? They still seem to mean more or less the same. Both make sense.
"Y was killed: X seems to have killed Y, Y seems to have been killed by X.
=> It seems that X killed Y".  Just depends on whom you're focusing.

Jorge