From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDZ79DxBBoEGqC9jg@googlegroups.com Sat Jul 30 09:57:13 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QnCqa-0003rt-SR; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:57:12 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf11151486fxd.16 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:57:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=urSenatSjqiVtZsEnuPtrURy/gWKyYwRtsvjS428PLM=; b=JpuskTYLfcCX7kXNt6hp7Vof5xoTkQqeaPk0bubvkWWtMjiuPcTqKlRD2/mRtnGbVd IqcVkUH9SzY71UHIBUoYV+xUdFUR/EHmyqOE7hgJYJFZ8sxMxrIFtuIoXJEDiPQw4FOt EOBfLdPdx5nEQCzljhbhxhIIPPBq3rspelOBA= Received: by 10.223.5.16 with SMTP id 16mr1936319fat.25.1312045017767; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.153.168 with SMTP id k40ls5336861wbw.0.gmail; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.23.196 with SMTP id s4mr252535wbb.10.1312045016513; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.23.196 with SMTP id s4mr252534wbb.10.1312045016489; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com (mail-wy0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e23si5735011wbp.2.2011.07.30.09.56.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.180; Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20so1132361wye.11 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.151.196 with SMTP id d4mr3919992wbw.102.1312045016112; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.47.135 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:56:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201107191408.50207.phma@phma.optus.nu> <1311780839.58357.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311870454.18589.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311886768.32022.YahooMailRC@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Luke Bergen Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:56:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities 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 74.125.82.180 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64c1f741d5cec04a94c49ff --0016e64c1f741d5cec04a94c49ff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What xorxes said. Also, http://vlasisku.lojban.org/fasnu would seem to agree by not having an x2 place for it at all. 2011/7/30 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM, tijlan wrote: > > > > I consider lifri1 as the theoretical x2 of "fasnu": > > > > ko'e lifri ko'a <-- ko'a fasnu ko'e > > kohe experiences koha <-- koha happens to kohe > > Do you think an event must necessarily happen TO someone or something, > or can it just happen? > > Even languages like English with obligatory syntactic subjects have > expressions like "it's raining", "it was cold", "it's late", and so on > where "it" is just a syntactic filler (much like "zi'o"). Do we really > need to say that those events happen to someone or something? > > I think it's a pity that Lojban doesn't have any zero argument gismu > because it helps hide the fact that zero argument predicates are > perfectly reasonable things to have. > > And even in a case like "ko'a dunda ko'e ko'i", we can see that as > something experienced by ko'e, something experienced by ko'i, even > something experienced by ko'a who is also the agent. But if we have > those three perspectives available, shouldn't we have a fourth > perspective where it is something that just happens? > > 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. --0016e64c1f741d5cec04a94c49ff Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What xorxes said. =A0Also,=A0h= ttp://vlasisku.lojban.org/fasnu=A0would seem to agree by not having an = x2 place for it at all.

2011/7/30 Jorge L= lamb=EDas <jjl= lambias@gmail.com>
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1= 0:20 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.= com> wrote:
>
> I consider lifri1 as the theoretical x2 of "fasnu":
>
> =A0ko'e lifri ko'a <-- ko'a fasnu ko'e
> =A0kohe experiences koha <-- koha happens to kohe

Do you think an event must necessarily happen TO someone or something= ,
or can it just happen?

Even languages like English with obligatory syntactic subjects have
expressions like "it's raining", "it was cold", &qu= ot;it's late", and so on
where "it" is just a syntactic filler (much like "zi'o&q= uot;). Do we really
need to say that those events happen to someone or something?

I think it's a pity that Lojban doesn't have any zero argument gism= u
because it helps hide the fact that zero argument predicates are
perfectly reasonable things to have.

And even in a case like "ko'a dunda ko'e ko'i", we ca= n see that as
something experienced by ko'e, something experienced by ko'i, even<= br> something experienced by ko'a who is also the agent. But if we have
those three perspectives available, shouldn't we have a fourth
perspective where it is something that just happens?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.
--0016e64c1f741d5cec04a94c49ff--