From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBChxcXmBBoElMipaA@googlegroups.com Wed Nov 03 06:25:03 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PDdKk-0004De-VN; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:25:03 -0700 Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20sf1006505gwj.16 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=kGjf9q0PfhZaR/HYhc/bN+ujY8WBEHTSVcNSenHMVVM=; b=YX5xnZWpTkUpZMoMrQk7EJ7+EuIOnW+wq9SKfqrsWNt5m6kptIIWvyLhX2eApFXZCP n8gUbMSHcL5hesoECzaCY+mw6A3WNIywxg5OMimLnyTrEav+/hgSwDco8bvRlbn28O7t 74Cd83KuR5xCKmmE1TnkT8F7g0r2AbE9uiBbQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=g0AtEwGS0orlmqg2FNWumSwNuDD9DIVWH1ueHHJmi9+TaGTD+jAo3OCAf+4y68dgBZ Eg6XqwNx0pD5uFje1xx4KaUNdXJnxHEc9Qq7hXtGQcX2Ph6Sazc+0pScKKDhuSUVwjEQ +qzkM8Uqh7BtucmKBObPlf2IK43Sgzi4igS1U= Received: by 10.91.55.38 with SMTP id h38mr63678agk.24.1288790689301; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls650912ibr.2.p; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.166.211 with SMTP id n19mr5146273iby.8.1288790688540; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.166.211 with SMTP id n19mr5146272iby.8.1288790688493; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f179.google.com (mail-iw0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j25si7502201ibb.0.2010.11.03.06.24.47; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.179; Received: by mail-iw0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 2so783924iwn.38 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.36.11 with SMTP id r11mr5181008ibd.58.1288790686821; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.149.14 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:24:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20101102040903.GA10493@alice.local> <4e1aec20-2d77-4473-a6e3-780700105315@v20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <924334.40683.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101102191856.GE10792@alice.local> <92fe62fc-36e3-4d93-938c-30c010d937e5@v20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <91643.97322.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <28a32f6d-464a-4ad1-b69b-accfe7e2e231@l8g2000yql.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:24:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325550e5a13f25e049425f703 --000325550e5a13f25e049425f703 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, xorxes, so if we have a definition of djica like: x1 desires/wants/wishes x2 (event/state) for purpose x3 3l 500 [if desire is for an object, this is sumti-raising; use tu'a in x2 (or use lujvo =3D po'edji)]; But you say that {mi djica lo plise} is acceptable because it's doing some kind of on-the-sly sumti raising of "lo nu citka lo plise" or something, then what would be wrong with {mi djuno do}? If we're going to allow implicit {tu'a}'s in some places, then we should allow them everywhere. {m= i se cinri la mynapoli} should be understood to *really* mean {mi se cinri tu'a la mynapoli}. And honestly, I think I'd be ok with that. If a brivla seems like it shoul= d take an event in one of its slots, and instead you find lo bliku, make the assumption that it's really {lo nu lo bliku co'e} i.e. {tu'a lo bliku}. Doing this would be fine with me.... IF we did it consistently. But to say in one breath that {mi djica lo plise} is fine, but {mi djuno do= } is not fine seems inconsistent. And I like my lojban without inconsistencies. 2010/11/3 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Lindar wrote: > > > >> mi djica lo nu mi bajra kei lo nu mi kanro > > > > So now we have twenty different values of 'want'. > > I'm only talking about "djica", not "want", and I don't think it has > different meanings, no. I already gave you an approximate definition > in Lojban, why don't you start from there? > > > What happens when we omit those x1s? > > The usual thing: you have to figure them out from context. > > "mi djica lo nu bajra" > > is not very different from: > > "mi kakne lo nu bajra" > > or: > > "mi zukte lo nu bajra" > > or: > > "mi troci lo nu bajra" > > or any of several dozen others, as far as figuring out what the x1 is. > > > > {mi djica lo nu bajra kei lo nu kanro}, which would be standard > > practice now. > > And it is perfectly fine. Do you have any problem with it? > > > This would end up being parallel in meaning to {mi djica fi lo nu lo > > nu mi bajra kei ku kanro} > > Why? > > > ...or {mi djica fi lo nu mi kanro lo nu mi bajra}, for that matter... > > Nothing I have said implies that. > > > > So now we have to explicitly mention the x1 in order for this not to > > happen? > > Of course not. > > > > You're saying that the x2 is raised to the x2 of the x3's clause in > > djica (for {mi djica lo plise lo nu citka}. > > No, all I said is that one frequent case is that some argument of the > subordinate in x3 is raised into the x2 of djica. Another frequent > case is that the x1 of a subordinate in x2 is raised into the x1 of > djica. As in "mi djica lo nu bajra". It doesn't always happen. For > example "mi djica lo nu carvi" does not follow the same pattern of "mi > djica lo nu bajra". Does that bother you? There are no strict rules > for figuring out what the empty places are filled with, and you > already know that, so why do you pretend that you don't? > > > So... now instead of > > desirer, desired (nu), reason (probably some kind of abstraction), we > > have "desirer, desired (any), reason (abstraction, x1 is the x1 of > > main bridi, x2 is x2 of main bridi" if we're making a consistent rule > > here. > > > > Is this correct? > > No. You are calling x3 the "reason", but that is incorrect. x3 is the > purpose. > > Suppose you want an apple. Some *reasons* for wanting an apple may be: > > (1) You are hungry. (Not a good value for x3.) > (2) You like apples. (Not a good value for x3.) > (3) You saw someone else eating one. (Not a good value for x3.) > > Those are possible *reasons* for you wanting to eat an apple, they > answer "why do you want one?", but they are not purposes, they don't > answer "what do you want it for?". > > Other possible reasons for wanting an apple are: > > (4) You want to eat it. > (5) You want to make apple pie. > (6) You want to throw it at someone. > > None of those are good vales for x3, although "to eat it", "to make > apple pie" or "to throw it at someone" alone would be. > > So don't confuse the reason for wanting something (which can sometimes > be wanting something else) with the purpose, what you want it for, > what you plan to do with it in case you get it. > > For example: > > lo nu mi citka lo plise titnanba cu krinu lo nu mi djica lo plise lo > nu zbasu lo plise titnanba > "My wanting to eat apple pie is the reason I want an apple to make apple > pie." > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --000325550e5a13f25e049425f703 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, xorxes, so if we have a definition of djica like:
x1 desires/wants/= wishes x2 (event/state) for purpose x3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03l 500 =A0 =A0[if desire is = for an object, this is sumti-raising; use tu'a in x2 (or use lujvo =3D = po'edji)];

But you say that {mi djica lo plise} is acceptable beca= use it's doing some kind of on-the-sly sumti raising of "lo nu cit= ka lo plise" or something, then what would be wrong with {mi djuno do}= ? =A0If we're going to allow implicit {tu'a}'s in some places, = then we should allow them everywhere. =A0{mi se cinri la mynapoli} should b= e understood to really=A0mean {mi se cinri tu'a la mynapoli}.

And honestly, I think I'd be ok with that. =A0If a = brivla seems like it should take an event in one of its slots, and instead = you find lo bliku, make the assumption that it's really {lo nu lo bliku= co'e} i.e. {tu'a lo bliku}. =A0Doing this would be fine with me...= . IF we did it consistently.

But to say in one breath that {mi djica lo plise} is fi= ne, but {mi djuno do} is not fine seems inconsistent. =A0And I like my lojb= an without inconsistencies.

2010/11/3 Jor= ge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12= :42 AM, Lindar <lindarthebard= @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> =A0mi djica lo nu mi bajra kei lo nu mi kanro
>
> So now we have twenty different values of 'want'.

I'm only talking about "djica", not "want", a= nd I don't think it has
different meanings, no. I already gave you an approximate definition
in Lojban, why don't you start from there?

> What happens when we omit those x1s?

The usual thing: you have to figure them out from context.

=A0 "mi djica lo nu bajra"

is not very different from:

=A0 "mi kakne lo nu bajra"

or:

=A0 "mi zukte lo nu bajra"

or:

=A0 "mi troci lo nu bajra"

or any of several dozen others, as far as figuring out what the x1 is.


> {mi djica lo nu bajra kei lo nu kanro}, which would be standard
> practice now.

And it is perfectly fine. Do you have any problem with it?

> This would end up being parallel in meaning to {mi djica fi lo nu lo > nu mi bajra kei ku kanro}

Why?

> ...or {mi djica fi lo nu mi kanro lo nu mi bajra}, for that matter...<= br>
Nothing I have said implies that.


> So now we have to explicitly mention the x1 in order for this not to > happen?

Of course not.


> You're saying that the x2 is raised to the x2 of the x3's clau= se in
> djica (for {mi djica lo plise lo nu citka}.

No, all I said is that one frequent case is that some argument of the=
subordinate in x3 is raised into the x2 of djica. Another frequent
case is that the x1 of a subordinate in x2 is raised into the x1 of
djica. As in "mi djica lo nu bajra". It doesn't always happen= . For
example "mi djica lo nu carvi" does not follow the same pattern o= f "mi
djica lo nu bajra". Does that bother you? There are no strict rules for figuring out what the empty places are filled with, and you
already know that, so why do you pretend that you don't?

> So... now instead of
> desirer, desired (nu), reason (probably some kind of abstraction), we<= br> > have "desirer, desired (any), reason (abstraction, x1 is the x1 o= f
> main bridi, x2 is x2 of main bridi" if we're making a consist= ent rule
> here.
>
> Is this correct?

No. You are calling x3 the "reason", but that is incorrect.= x3 is the purpose.

Suppose you want an apple. Some *reasons* for wanting an apple may be:

(1) You are hungry. (Not a good value for x3.)
(2) You like apples. (Not a good value for x3.)
(3) You saw someone else eating one. (Not a good value for x3.)

Those are possible *reasons* for you wanting to eat an apple, they
answer "why do you want one?", but they are not purposes, they do= n't
answer "what do you want it for?".

Other possible reasons for wanting an apple are:

(4) You want to eat it.
(5) You want to make apple pie.
(6) You want to throw it at someone.

None of those are good vales for x3, although "to eat it", "= to make
apple pie" or "to throw it at someone" alone would be.

So don't confuse the reason for wanting something (which can sometimes<= br> be wanting something else) with the purpose, what you want it for,
what you plan to do with it in case you get it.

For example:

=A0lo nu mi citka lo plise titnanba cu krinu lo nu mi djica lo plise lo nu zbasu lo plise titnanba
=A0"My wanting to eat apple pie is the reason I want an apple to make= apple pie."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because y= ou are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--000325550e5a13f25e049425f703--