From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDU38XmBBoEIUBKBw@googlegroups.com Wed Nov 03 07:21:24 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PDeDG-0003n2-Do; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:24 -0700 Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3sf1092474ywj.16 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:12 -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=Bipln63lLC574clqf2tDJttIOHUUkOTa9ez5+Yx99Fg=; b=3CyxKgpFn65NCPHLNEz1X3zSXD9VMZq6R3mKiRKnmitFRulZPHiWvZ3XgyU4O/F8xz iVLMQbfPwqWwc6J4GWUGMIgaDeY9+E/tlmLCtKdC8iO5kJYTd9XEP86ySxBP9+5evbfe YXz/5DU2TywW9fo7bCxinLvRCdJc29w72GFUk= 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=cYN+hPUT0Mfr6cU02R4BATPvCvakmHyXdbb0/VS1R1x0VtmvBmJHm88PwtXZWVhLkZ nrkmQ+XU2CaGLA90bFN8flFq2iHhI/gX2zFOSrCK06JbQQA2Uh5xPWxwxYRTDZ6lf8Fd voz9uNM1idUr5+ocjoqQ/x4FNW2vdtVKuy1cE= Received: by 10.151.62.4 with SMTP id p4mr100852ybk.30.1288794068794; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.158.14 with SMTP id g14ls644585ybe.7.p; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.109.8 with SMTP id l8mr206691ybm.54.1288794068200; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.109.8 with SMTP id l8mr206690ybm.54.1288794068132; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f45.google.com (mail-gw0-f45.google.com [74.125.83.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id q8si3194370ybk.8.2010.11.03.07.21.07; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.45; Received: by mail-gw0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 20so494008gwj.32 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.21.17 with SMTP id i17mr13624922icb.263.1288794066867; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.149.14 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:21:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <804428.36774.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> <461946.2061.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <804428.36774.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:21:06 -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 74.125.83.45 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=20cf30434a5c8b5580049426c0df --20cf30434a5c8b5580049426c0df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It occurs to me that my definition of djica just transfers the argument about x2 of djica to the x2 of pacna. Let me try ko'a djica ko'e ko'i =3D ko'a ba nelci lo nu ko'i .iku'i lo nu ko'i cu na c= a cfari .ija'ebo ko'a pacna lo nu ko'e cu fasnu kei mu'i lo nu lo nu ko'e fasnu kei rinka lo nu ko'i When I read djica in a piece of text, I've gotten to the point where I'm expecting x2 to be something that happens (or, in the case of things like plise, I would expect {tu'a lo plise}). Bottom line is this. The gismu list says that x2 of djica is an event/state. And depending on your list, it even explicitly states that x2 is not an object and that if you want to put an object there, use {tu'a} or a lujvo. If we want to be able to say things like {mi djica lo plise} then we need to change the definition. Because {mi djica lo plise} is not consistent with the definition as it stands in jbovlaste. On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:11 AM, John E Clifford wrot= e: > After reading xorxes' analysis of 'djuno', which looks like the standard > model, I see that, in fact, the problems with 'djica' do not arise with > 'djuno', so skip this. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John E Clifford > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *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 down to heavi= ly > 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 djic= a > ta'. The problem with the more general 'mi djuno lo gerku', say, like 'm= i > djica lo plise' is that they so often turn out to be false when you run t= hem > hrough the definitions (actually, I haven't worked it out for 'djuno' but= it > seems likely to be the same sort of problem). > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Wed, November 3, 2010 8:24:46 AM > *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 > 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 som= e > 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. = {mi > 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 > 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}. 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 appl= e >> pie." >> >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s >> "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. > > -- > 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. --20cf30434a5c8b5580049426c0df Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It occurs to me that my definition of djica just transfers the argument abo= ut x2 of djica to the x2 of pacna. =A0Let me try=A0

ko&#= 39;a djica ko'e ko'i =3D ko'a ba nelci lo nu ko'i .iku'= i lo nu ko'i cu na ca cfari .ija'ebo ko'a pacna lo nu ko'e = cu fasnu kei mu'i lo nu lo nu ko'e fasnu kei rinka lo nu ko'i

When I read djica in a piece of text, I've gotten t= o the point where I'm expecting x2 to be something that happens (or, in= the case of things like plise, I would expect {tu'a lo plise}).

Bottom line is this. =A0The gismu list says that x2 of = djica is an event/state. =A0And depending on your list, it even=A0explicitl= y=A0states that x2 is not an object and that if you want to put an object t= here, use {tu'a} or a lujvo. =A0If we want to be able to say things lik= e {mi djica lo plise} then we need to change the definition. =A0Because {mi= djica lo plise} is not consistent with the definition as it stands in jbov= laste.

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:11 AM, J= ohn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
After reading xorxes' analysis of 'djuno', which = looks like the standard model, I see that, in fact, the problems with '= djica' do not arise with 'djuno', so skip this.

=
From: John E = Clifford <kali= 9putra@yahoo.com>
To:<= /b> lojban@goo= glegroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 = 9:01:36 AM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

Well, 'djuno' typically takes propositions, not event phra= ses, but, since I think they are all really propositions anyhow, I can'= t come down to heavily on that.=A0 And, of course, I can't really objec= t to 'mi djuno do'=A0 in the sense of "I know (something)=A0 a= bout you" since I don't object to 'mi djica ta'.=A0 The pr= oblem with the more general 'mi 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 haven't worked it out for = 9;djuno' but it seems likely to be the same sort of problem).

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen= @gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegro= ups.com
Sent: Wed, November 3, 2010 = 8:24:46 AM
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 =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, 201= 0 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 you are subscr= ibed 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+unsub= scribe@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 &= quot;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.

--
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@googlegrou= ps.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 &= quot;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/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.
--20cf30434a5c8b5580049426c0df--