Date:         Thu, 21 May 1998 21:11:47 -0300
Reply-To:     "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      RV:      Re: lo sidbo cu na fuzme...
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <895796308.107461.1@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 1746
Lines: 41


Lionel:
>> >> i uu lo prenu cu na fuzme le se cinmo poi catke ra le sidbo
>> >
>> Could you explain what you mean by the relative clause?  I suppose
>> {ra} stands for the person, then: "It is not the case that some person
>> is responsible for the emotion, which pushes the person on the idea"?
 >
>Your first guess was right. I wanted to stress that while "No idea is
>responsible for its believer", it is still hard to set the responsability
on
>the believer, since ideas are kind of crystalized behaviors, and I think
>behavior is emotion-driven. Thus: "No one is responsible for his emotions,
>the very ones that drive him to his ideas (however foolish they can be)."

But the x3 of catke is not where the x2 is driven to. It is the part of x2
where
the pressure is exerted. Maybe you could use {bevri} instead of {catke}.
(In any case it's metaphorical, be it a shove or a haul.)

>Maybe: uu ro prenu na fuzme lo nu cinmo noi catke ra lo sidbo

That means that it is not the case that every person is responsible
for their feelings, but it could be the case that some persons _are_
responsible. You should keep {lo prenu} for the more absolute
claim.

I might add:

 i ja'o no prenu cu fuzme le nu ri zukte noi jalge le nu sidbo e le nu cinmo
"I conclude that nobody is responsible for their actions, which result
from ideas and feelings."

co'o mi'e xorxes