From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDl2cXmBBoEbC21eQ@googlegroups.com Wed Nov 03 07:08:51 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PDe19-0001He-0r; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:51 -0700 Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42sf1067259yxe.16 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:41 -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=uQQ7+BXKi70//cGxkq8qKtakLLTUyD3o2Jg7p3Jv6GE=; b=2cVUR61/WWUWQF/k5XTv7n/bOh23zihUruza79vONrc/spzRVlNT8qNh3gnuNQ/0l1 aAZfBDoOczp4nkij6tfHOggrMwQWZ6v52ww/eKQTrzNporEM1kKvvobwThRh98SSRY7T gL0hxX3Asfs+tu3XqYlNTQv5Z2nEvMON0xXLU= 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=4hEEfyzDYWmkSUxlTGfoZyzBFajpasrzWWHdP0IR524OnUUeCl3fL1VERKJwKs/NHC mzIrcAi3GpiTnzdAZ47RfUY5jUV8LETcQTDuclzkkWRfLNeiDYjvU64SQS8hYSRatrHQ fNzRPpS2Z7wgVHokuxOwB5kD0BRUk9SZi2V8E= Received: by 10.90.6.27 with SMTP id 27mr67125agf.37.1288793317656; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.9.34 with SMTP id 34ls248067agi.1.p; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.59.3 with SMTP id h3mr410835aga.11.1288793317005; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.59.3 with SMTP id h3mr410834aga.11.1288793316966; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f180.google.com (mail-gx0-f180.google.com [209.85.161.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j10si2986413yha.2.2010.11.03.07.08.35; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.180; Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so520161gxk.11 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.76.145 with SMTP id e17mr6962910ick.62.1288793312652; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.149.14 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <149060.24066.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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> <149060.24066.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:08:31 -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 209.85.161.180 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=90e6ba2124fd970156049426938e --90e6ba2124fd970156049426938e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My understanding of djica is something like {ko'a pacna lo nu ko'e .ije lo nu ko'e cu rinka lo nu ko'a kakne lo nu ko'i .ija'ebo ko'a gleki}. For ko'e to be {lo bliku} then seems silly because {lo bliku} is not an event. My understanding of djuno is something like {ko'a birti jinvi lo du'u ko'e cu jetnu kei ko'i .yyy ko'o} not sure how to handle epistemology. Ok then, instead of {mi djuno do} is {mi djuno la xorxes} ok? {la xorxes} is certainly an object. If {mi djica la xorxes} is acceptable, then {mi djuno la xorxes} should be acceptable for the same reasons. Both are putting {la xorxes} in a place that is expecting an abstraction. On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM, John E Clifford wrote= : > Well, right -- except I don't think the x1 of 'lo nu mi citka lo plise' i= s > raised to the x1 of the whole, but rather the x1 of the event phrase is > omitted > because it repeats the x1 of the whole. > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jorge Llamb=EDas > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 8:08:09 AM > Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra > > 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. > > > > > -- > 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. --90e6ba2124fd970156049426938e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My understanding of djica is something like {ko'a pacna lo nu ko'e = .ije lo nu ko'e cu rinka lo nu ko'a kakne lo nu ko'i .ija'e= bo ko'a gleki}.

For ko'e to be {lo bliku} then s= eems silly because {lo bliku} is not an event.

My understanding of djuno is something like {ko'a b= irti jinvi lo du'u ko'e cu jetnu kei ko'i .yyy ko'o} not su= re how to handle=A0epistemology.

Ok then, instead = of {mi djuno do} is {mi djuno la xorxes} ok? =A0{la xorxes} is certainly an= object. =A0If {mi djica la xorxes} is acceptable, then {mi djuno la xorxes= } should be acceptable for the same reasons. =A0Both are putting {la xorxes= } in a place that is expecting an abstraction.

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:52 AM, John E Cliff= ord <kali9putr= a@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, right -- except I don't think the x1 of 'lo nu mi citka lo pl= ise' is
raised to the x1 of the whole, but rather the x1 of the event phrase is omi= tted
because it repeats the x1 of the whole.




----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambi= as@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com<= br>
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 8:08:09 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Li= ndar <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", and I d= on'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 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.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.
--90e6ba2124fd970156049426938e--