Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:09:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160009.TAA29705@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: forward from Greg Higley To: lojban X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2329 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 15 19:09:44 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >As far as I understand, it is a general rule of Lojban that using SE >does not change the meaning of a bridi. Each sumti place is 'equal'. A better way to say it is that using SE does not change the meaning of a selbri. The bridi often does change, because the order of the sumti is relevant when there are quantifiers. For example: ro prenu cu prami lo prenu Everybody loves somebody. means something quite different from: lo prenu cu se prami ro prenu There is someone who is loved by everyone. The selbri means exactly the same in both cases, but the two bridi mean different things. >Thus > >{le prenu cu klama le zdani} >the person goes to the house > >is Lojbanically the same as > >{le zdani cu se klama le prenu} >the house is-the-destination-of the person In your example there is no problem because the two sumti are of singular referent type, and for those any order works. >I'm sure that it could be argued that there are differences in emphasis >between these two sentences, but emphasis is not my point. The >sentences have the same _essential_ meaning. If this is true, what can >we make of the following two abstractions? > >{ka le prenu cu klama le zdani} > >{ka le zdani cu se klama le prenu} They both would mean to me: The property of being gone from, by the person to the home. More explicitly: {ka le prenu le zdani ce'u klama} You can't have a {ka} without an explicit or implicit {ce'u}. What would it mean, other than {nu}? If you don't agree that a property must always be a property _of_ something, how do you say "property" in Lojban? >I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way. If you mean without an at least implicit ce'u, I agree. {ka} doesn't make sense without it. >It is >being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would >argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the >relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri. Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot. >Most >lojbanists would use {ka ckule} and {ka se ckule} in very different >ways. But again, the rules say that they are the same -- otherwise we >are 'favoring' the first sumti over the others. Yes, in a sense we are. co'o mi'e xorxes