After reading xorxes' analysis of 'djuno', which looks li= ke the standard model, I see that, in fact, the problems with 'djica' do no= t arise with 'djuno', so skip this.

From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
<= span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 9:= 01:36 AM
Subject: Re: [= lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

Well, 'djuno' typically takes propositions, not event phrases,= but, since I think they are all really propositions anyhow, I can't come d= own to heavily on that. And, of course, I can't really object to 'mi = djuno do' in the sense of "I know (something) about you" since = I don't object to 'mi djica ta'. The problem with the more general 'm= i djuno lo gerku', say, like 'mi djica lo plise' is that they so often turn= out to be false when you run them hrough the definitions (actually, I have= n't worked it out for 'djuno' but it seems likely to be the same sort of pr= oblem).

From: Luke Berge= n <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To:= lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra
Ok, xorxes, so if we have a definition of djica like:

x1 desires/wants/= wishes x2 (event/state) for purpose x3 &= nbsp; = 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 beca= use it's doing some kind of on-the-sly sumti raising of "lo nu citka lo pli= se" 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 th= em everywhere. {mi se cinri la mynapoli} should be understood to r= eally mean {mi se cinri tu'a la mynapoli}.

And honestly, I think I'd be ok with that. If a b= rivla seems like it should take an event in one of its slots, and instead y= ou 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 di= d 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. And I like my l= ojban without inconsistencies.

2010/11/3 = Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> 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<= br> 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...<= 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 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<= br> > 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<= br> > 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 a= pple 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@googlegro= ups.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.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.