X-Digest-Num: 117 Message-ID: <44114.117.653.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 21:47:36 -0300 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: di'e preti zo nu X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 653 Content-Length: 1521 Lines: 40 la kolin spuda la djer di'e >I think your point may be interpretable in terms of Lojban grammar by >assuming a further subcategorisation - suppose that some tersumti >subcategorise not just for kamsucta, but for kamfasnu (event) or >kamselckaji (property). You may be right, and nitcu is no doubt a word >where this question is significant. I think most tersumti that subcategorise for kamsucta do also further subcategorise for kamfasnu/kamselckaji. For example zmadu definitely requires a selckaji in x3, and no fasnu will do. This is true of most places that require properties. >If this is correct, your argument is that nitcu requires a property and >not a predication or state-of-affairs. This is a possible position to >take, but it does not seem to me to be useful, or supported by the >arguments and usage of those who have considered or used nitcu in the >past. What is clear is that it cannot be supported by the choice of form >used in the English gloss. I hope nitcu doesn't go the same way sisku went for this very same reason I think. The "solution" that turned "x1 looks for x2" into "x1 looks for something with property x2" is really no solution, because we could always construct a lujvo meaning "x1 looks for object x2" and the same difficulty surfaces again. In fact, as far as I can tell sisku is still being used with its original meaning, which is the more useful one. Changing {nitcu} to "x1 needs something with property x2" I think would be a mistake. co'o mi'e xorxes