From pycyn@aol.com Thu Oct 17 10:20:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_1); 17 Oct 2002 17:20:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 64099 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2002 17:20:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Oct 2002 17:20:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 2002 17:20:55 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.16b.15b240f6 (2612) for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16b.15b240f6.2ae04b71@aol.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:20:49 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: brivla for 'intend' To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16b.15b240f6.2ae04b71_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16727 --part1_16b.15b240f6.2ae04b71_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:41:01 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > 2. This, incidentally, is partly the intersection of {zukte} and {gasnu}: I > >zukte this to achieve that, but I gasnu the other, > > Don't you agree that in that case, I have to be the agent of "this", > but need not be (and generally am not) the agent of "the other"? > > In {ko'a zukte le nu broda}, the claim is that {ko'a} is the agent > of the sub-event {nu broda}. We would not say, for example > {mi zukte le nu le mlatu cu citka le rectu}, but rather > {mi gasnu le nu le mlatu cu citka le rectu}. We would not say > {mi gasnu le nu mi citka} unless we were doing something > addittional to just eating, like making ourselves eat, would > we? >> Well, {mi zukte le nu le mlatu cu citka le rectu} suggests I had some further goal in mind -- getting the cat to shut up springs to mind, but does not seem less agentive than {mi gasnu lenu le mlatu cu citka le rectu}, which does not suggest a further goal. As for {mi gasnu le nu mi citka}, this sounds like there was some obstacle to my eating, whether it was my own resistance to the idea or some outside force. Certainly it suggests something beyond {mi citka}. << The x1 of gasnu is the agent of le nu gasnu, but not of le se gasnu. The x1 of zukte, on the other hand, is the agent of le se zukte. >> Yes, as I said, I do (agentive) x to achieve y but am thereby the agent-cause of z, even if I am not the agent *in* z. I think I am missing your point here, since your tone suggests you disagree with me but your words just sound like an echo. << {gasnu} adds an agent place. {zukte} selects the agent from a relationship that already has one. >> Not an agent place, but an agent-cause place. The agent in le se gasnu is whatever it is, but it is caused to do what it does by le gasnu. And yes, le zukte is also the "agent" in le se zukte (though no doing need be involved), but that doesn't seem quite to be selection; it is just the way {zukte} works. << Of course {zukte} is only for volitional agents. {zukte fi zi'o} for selecting agents in general. >> What is a non-volitional agent? The fact that some critter -- or inanimate object, for that matter -- does something (as we say in English) does not make it an agent. The significant thing about {zukte} is the further purpose; the significant thing about {gasnu} is the peculiar kind of causation it involves. This is all philosophical -- and so disputable -- but generally pretty straightforward. --part1_16b.15b240f6.2ae04b71_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:41:01 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

2. This, incidentally, is partly the intersection of {zukte} and {gasnu}: I
>zukte this to achieve that, but I gasnu the other,

Don't you agree that in that case, I have to be the agent of "this",
but need not be (and generally am not) the agent of "the other"?

In {ko'a zukte le nu broda}, the claim is that {ko'a} is the agent
of the sub-event {nu broda}. We would not say, for example
{mi zukte le nu le mlatu cu citka le rectu}, but rather
{mi gasnu le nu le mlatu cu citka le rectu}. We would not say
{mi gasnu le nu mi citka} unless we were doing something
addittional to just eating, like making ourselves eat, would
we?

>>
Well, {mi zukte le nu le mlatu cu citka le rectu} suggests I had some further goal in mind -- getting the cat to shut up springs to mind, but does not seem less agentive than {mi gasnu lenu le mlatu cu citka le rectu}, which does not suggest a further goal. As for {mi gasnu le nu mi citka}, this sounds like there was some obstacle to my eating, whether it was my own resistance to the idea or some outside force. Certainly it suggests something beyond {mi citka}.

<<
The x1 of gasnu is the agent of le nu gasnu, but not of le se gasnu.
The x1 of zukte, on the other hand, is the agent of le se zukte.
>>
Yes, as I said, I do (agentive) x to achieve y but am thereby the agent-cause of z, even if I am not the agent *in* z.
I think I am missing your point here, since your tone suggests you disagree with me but your words just sound like an echo.

<<
{gasnu} adds an agent place. {zukte} selects the agent from
a relationship that already has one.
>>
Not an agent place, but an agent-cause place. The agent in le se gasnu is whatever it is, but it is caused to do what it does by le gasnu. And yes, le zukte is also the "agent" in le se zukte (though no doing need be involved), but that doesn't seem quite to be selection; it is just the way {zukte} works.

<<
Of course {zukte} is only for volitional agents. {zukte fi zi'o} for
selecting agents in general.
>>
What is a non-volitional agent? The fact that some critter -- or inanimate object, for that matter -- does something (as we say in English) does not make it an agent. The significant thing about {zukte} is the further purpose; the significant thing about {gasnu} is the peculiar kind of causation it involves. This is all philosophical -- and so disputable -- but generally pretty straightforward.
--part1_16b.15b240f6.2ae04b71_boundary--