From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Sun Jul 24 16:56:09 1994
Message-Id: <199407242056.AA25932@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Sun Jul 24 16:56:09 1994
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <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

> =mi do kecti doi nitcion le nu do kafke bilga
> =i pau do ba kafke le tertcidu liste ma
>
> .i .u'i lenu mi pilno le pe'a zei skutadji cu na'e se zanru ci'e la lojban
> li'a .ia
> .iku'i xuji'a na'e.ei se zanru ci'e le nalritli ke sralo glico
> .i bau ri lu ga'u kafke li'u cu sinxa la'ezo cupra

i je'a se zanru
i pe'i ji'a se zanru fa le nu pe'a zei cusku ci'e la lojban
ijo la'e le selsku cu ka'e se jimpe secau le nu certu tu'a le glibau

i zu'unai mi se zdile le nu se xanri le nu do ca'a kafke le liste   i u'i


> For some concepts, we have an abstract sumti place and a concrete sumti place,
> where the concrete is an argument of the abstract's predication.

Ok, for example the x3 of djuno is an argument of the predication
that goes in x2.

> For some of
> these, using a different argument of the abstract in the concrete place makes
> for a different meaning; in that case, we don't have raising.

This sounds interesting, but I can't think of any examples. What do you have
in mind?

> In others, it
> doesn't make any difference, so the meaning is the same; in that case, we
> do have raising, and these days we would discard the concrete place as
> redundant.

But of course, as the issue is not black and white, some such places are
still around.

> I really don't see how else we could do this, if not on a
> case-by-case basis. After all, this is Lojban, not Schankian semantics ;)

Can't comment on Schank :( . Although this issue is also interesting, I was
thinking of something else. When are object and event allowed _in the same
slot_, rather than when is there a slot for each. {nelci do} is allowed,
while {do pluka} is not. Why?


> =simlu: x1 seems to have proprerty x2
> =simsa: x1 seems (is similar to) x2
>
> Yeah, but you see, raising is a syntactic, not a semantic property.

666

> All the
> syntax textbooks I see treat "He seems to be cold" as a raising from "It
> seems that he is cold", and if they buy a semantic deep structure, it will
> be SEEMS(COLD(he)). If we acknowledged raising here, we'd say {lenu mi
> lenku cu simlu} --- 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 see what you
mean now. I thought you meant things like {xy simlu le catra}, which would
be an example of what I thought was illegal sumti raising.

You've now convinced me that {simlu} should be like {fasnu}, {cumki}, etc,
but I guess there's little chance of that happening...

I was not talking about superfluous object places, though. I was asking
why some places allow both object and event, while other very similar ones
only allow one.

Jorge