Date:         Fri, 22 May 1998 21:45:32 +0200
Reply-To:     Lionel Bonnetier <leo@EASYNET.FR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Lionel Bonnetier <leo@EASYNET.FR>
Subject:      Re: CPE: lo prenu na fuzme. PLI: fuzme
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <895867946.1024941.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 1822
Lines: 49


Jorge wrote:

> >> >> i uu lo prenu cu na fuzme le se cinmo poi catke ra le sidbo
> 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.)

Oops... Thank you for pointing it to me.


> >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.

Oops again. I mistook /na/, at the location I put it, for a
traditional-grammar-predicate negator, while it's a whole bridi negator.


> You should keep {lo prenu} for the more absolute claim.

But can't /lo prenu na fuzme.../ also mean "Some people are not responsible
for...", thus leaving away the generality? Does /lo remna cu mabru/ mean
"Any human is a mammal", or "Some humans are mammals"?


> 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."

Yes, this is the paradox I meant. It leads to the various meanings of
'responsability'. Should /fuzme/ hold both the pragmatic responsability or
control over oneself, and the moral or social responsability for one's actions?

Lionel

   Lionel Bonnetier <leo@easynet.fr>   Ph: +33 478 601 862