Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4087 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2000 00:57:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Apr 2000 00:57:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.165) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Apr 2000 00:57:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 89582 invoked by uid 0); 15 Apr 2000 00:57:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000415005740.89581.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.61 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:57:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.61] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Bringing it about that Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:57:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2393 Content-Length: 1962 Lines: 54 la lojbab cusku di'e > >John IS an event by many definitions > >Yes and if his mere existence motivates something, that would seem >acceptable in x1. Why is John, as an event, merely his existence? Isn't John the sum of all of his actions and properties, including but not limited to his existence? Is {le nu la djan zasti} such a special event that it gets to be named John all by itself? >I think that the important point in flagging the place as an event is to >get people to think about what the real motive is before making the claim, >which usually is not just "John". But the point was that it is just as arbitrary to stop at any level of abstraction as it would be to stop at John. What is it that motivates you to hit John? Him? His laughing? The annoyance of his laughing? etc. etc. Yes, any or all of them. >I think people are >still prone to thinking two-placedly (there ought to be a good ten-dollar >Latinate word for that! A 10-rupnu Lojban word is easy, of course). What is the dekrupnu Lojban word, then? Is it really so easy? Also, what would be a good lujvo for "prone": x1 is prone/has a tendency/inclination/proclivity/predisposition to be/do x2; I've often looked for a gismu with a meaning like that, which would be very useful in making many lujvo. {nelci} is the closest I can think of, but it is not very satisfying. >Indeed, I think the >tendency is the other way, towards overly analytical semantics, especially >as compared to the poetic lujvo that Michael Helsem used to coin (and may >still, since I never have time to read his writings, sorry Michael). How can the tendency be away from Michael when Michael is the most prolific author we have now, and has been for quite a while? You must be thinking of the tendency of commentators rather than the tendency of actual usage. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com