Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 19:39:25 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: selbri as sumti
In-reply-to: (Your message of Wed, 22 Mar 95 12:19:43 EST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HON4GV1YZU002YIB@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2331
Lines: 47

Jorge:
> > > > I think that how to specify the x2 of krefu using a {lo} gadri is
> > > > the kind of thing I've already been asking about: it wd seem to refer
> > > > to a category rather than an individual.
> > > I think the x2 is just the first of the series, not the archetype,
> > > whatever that is. (Or if it was, we could use {lo'e}, maybe.)
> > So if John goes, and then Sophy goes, Sophy's going is a recurrence
> > of John's going? Seems weird.
> I wouldn't say Sophy's going was a recurrence of John's. I wouldn't
> say that they are both recurrences of the same event either. My
> brushing my teeth today is a recurrence of my brushing my teeth
> yesterday, but not of someone else's brushing their teeth, or me
> brushing something else, or anything like that.

But if John goes and then Sophy goes, Sophy's going is a recurrence of
going - of lo nu da klama. And your toothbrushing is a recurrence of
there being something that you brush, and of there being someone that
brushes your teeth, and of there being something that someone brushes.
This is what I was getting at.

> > and using lohe with
> > this meaning as x2 of krefu does seem particularly appropriate for
> > talking about different temporally differentiable manifestations of
> > lohe broda, as in
> >   ca Monday, mi viska lohe gerku
> >   ca Tuesday, mi viska lo krefu be lohe gerku
> You could just say that do viska lo'e gerku again. Both events are
> lo krefu be lo'e nu do viska lo'e gerku
> >   ca Monday mi viska la djan
> >   ca Tuesday  mi viska lo kerfu be la djan
> Or: lo krefu be do cu viska lo krefu be la djan
> But I would say {krefu le nu do viska la djan}
> > The implication is that an individual is like a set of experiencings
> > of that individual; the Djan you see today is not the Djan you saw
> > yesterday, even if you saw the same person on both days.
> I suppose it's meaningful, although I wouldn't advocate it as the
> general philosophy of the language. I certainly don't want to stick
> {lo krefu be} in front of every sumti.

I don't mean to suggest it be recommended. I just wanted to point out
a neat way of expressing an occasionally useful perception. In English
you can do similar things by converting proper nouns into common nouns,
as in "It was a richer and happier Sophy that emerged from the room".

---
And