From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Feb 10 11:24:48 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id LAA14057 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 11:24:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199602101624.LAA14057@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id EBA59995 ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:49:31 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:47:47 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: *old response on kalte vs. sisku To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2176 pc: > My >problem is that the guidelines for _kalte_ as & et x present it >(claiming that it is what the list actually says) gives me no clue at >all about how to use this word. It is not, for example, the word to use >at the bottom of the clauses that say the English "hunt," since that is >an achievement word, not an activity or process word. Nor can I use it >just to describe an activity or process unless I know that the process >will be completed or the activity involves a specifiable target, neither >of which is generally possible when I want to talk about the at first >glance rather similar activity or process which I English as hunting. Not knowing where this ended up - >I< certainly intended "hunt" to be the pursuit of quarry, which presumably the pursuer believes to exist (or plausibly to exist). I have no trouble considering hunting as a state, activity, process, or point event (and even the superfective makes sense). It is my opinion STILL that lo/le DO NOT claim that the sumti referents exist in the real universe. Every time someone comes up with a problem, it seems to me that this opinion resolves that problem. If someone wants to get hung up about opaque/transparent, I could buy a discursive that made the distinction, or if it is a certainty that opacity/transparency has no meaning except in the context of individual sumti, I could buy a pair of members of LAhE as pc suggested. pc: >What is the intended result of seeking and hunting? Finding and TAKing, >I guess. But "find" is surely already a gismu, though I can't find it, >and TAKE is just a disjunction of a variety of takings, the appropriate >one of which would be substituted in each case. That is, these once >useful old gismu would be superfluous and replaced by complexes to the >same effect as the gismu once had. So you have not yet found a new >purpose for the displaced forms. facki for discover cpacu/lebna for take, depending on semantics but kalte is not necessarily that (or seek) - it was intended for the rather more narrow meaning of attempting to capture/kill quarry to make use of the "catch". lojbab