Date:  Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:01:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711091701.MAA07693@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      Re: mukti / djica
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS on Fri, Nov 07,
              1997 at 05:04:11PM -0300
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2731
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov  9 12:01:50 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

cu'u la xorxes

> cu'u la veion
> >    le nu citka cu te djica le nu te vecnu le nanba kei mi
> >    le nu mi xagji cu mukti le nu te vecnu le nanba kei mi
> >
> >  x3 of djica is a goal, x1 of mukti is a starting point
>
> So you respond affirmatively to my questions:
>
> >>Is there a significant difference between purpose
> >>and motive? Is it a matter of tense, the motive having to occur
> >>before and the purpose after?
>

  I don't think it is only a matter of tense. A state of emergency
  might motivate you to behave in a certain way without a purpose
  connected with the state of emergency per se. Also some state
  which will prevail tomorrow might motivate you to behave in a
  certain way today: if you know the shops will be closed tomorrow,
  you are motivated to do your shopping today.

  I think {le te djica} explains the utility of {le se djica},
  {le mukti} the motivation for {le se mukti}. At least some
  component of {le se djica} is involved in {le te djica} (the
  whole of {le se djica} might be agentive in {le te djica})
  whereas no part of {le se mukti} needs to be involved in
  {le mukti}. Sometimes {le te djica} would be the achievement
  of the negation of {le mukti}: the noise coming from the outside
  motivates me to close the window/I want to close the window
  to shut out the noise from the outside.

  There also seems to be a difference between {le se djica} and
  {le se mukti}. {le se djica} is something {le djica} wants to
  happen, {le se mukti} may already have happened by volition of
  {le te mukti}.

> But do you accept these:
>

  I think they leave too much room for interpretation

>     i le nu ba'o xagji cu te djica le nu te vecnu le nanba kei mi

      e.g. having been hungry but not anymore ...

>     i le nu pu'o citka cu mukti le nu te vecnu le nanba kei mi

      e.g. being about to eat ...

>
> >>If so, why do we need two words,
> >>can't we just use the tenses to show the sequence?

  See above. Of course, combining e.g. rinka and djica we might get
  away without mukti, but then again, the gismu list wasn't built
  this kind of minimalism in mind.

> In summary, we have identified two differences between djica and
> mukti:
>
> 1- {le te mukti} must be the agent of {le se mukti}, whereas there
> need not be any such relation between {le djica} and {le se djica}.
>
  The definition of {mukti} only speaks about the volition of
  {le te mukti}. Would the following be possible?

    le fagri cu mukti le nu do bartu klama kei mi


> 2- {le mukti} happens before {le se mukti}, but {le te djica} happens
> after {le se djica}.

  {le mukti} hasn't necessarily any temporal relationship with {le se
  mukti}

>  co'o mi'e xorxes

  co'o mi'e veion