Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OA1I3-0000Cw-RS; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:39:05 -0700 Received: by gwj21 with SMTP id 21sf5335013gwj.16 for ; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:53 -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-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=vN35E9mFJXaJCT1U8rn8J1lQdi3iLgxGh2tHfu4Hh28=; b=ALIlYb6jQCy/kQZDmwQnNl2rbeHlwydxICtp5fh9dhRpphnByvWYNjwRrQfmz0xktZ AIO+hVPGazH8J55BTEUSOGRtxI52YVjnffzRzFUFVnP/TmvBtMgwQd3mCfionnr1suSf NfaeYSvifJBcgMmrdHPczYFOoyjLAbg8sHBAw= 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-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=ukzP7b3UjP7stRPrQ4zk4YiI0zm8rPSlSfAm3iI6QbOuGJtgKGECAvTdQR8Yka1Qr/ AemliP0UZeyMe3NotkE+sC6fZCxlTjKrD67yR/zAazW4/tFr+UVo11esQ6zEA8yuDsF5 Lg/tNdVqW4DqXGpbq5MXrnyIuiL25V4wE8f2o= Received: by 10.90.62.19 with SMTP id k19mr1578257aga.25.1273153130248; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.39.13 with SMTP id r13ls3168227agj.5.p; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.27.37 with SMTP id e37mr3293381agj.9.1273153129634; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.27.37 with SMTP id e37mr3293380agj.9.1273153129592; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com (mail-qy0-f173.google.com [209.85.221.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si54425ywh.7.2010.05.06.06.38.48; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.173; Received: by mail-qy0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 4so900996qyk.21 for ; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.60.5 with SMTP id n5mr7553634qah.288.1273153128340; Thu, 06 May 2010 06:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.141.10 with HTTP; Thu, 6 May 2010 06:38:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2035EAA2-54C5-4259-BC7C-497A1CA2A4F5@mac.com> Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 09:38:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Proposed change to smart.fm items From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f8995acf59ef60485ed0f23 Content-Length: 7621 --00c09f8995acf59ef60485ed0f23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's not so much that I've decided that {lo se djica} is a nu as that if it were anything else a nu would be implied, in the way I see it. Put another way, assuming {ko'a} to not be abstract, {mi djica ko'a} to me IS {mi djica tu'a ko'a} because to me there is always an underlying event, proposition, etc. involved in "wanting a thing". Wording it in terms of "logical sense" was probably not the best way to do it, and yet in my mind that's really what's going on: any "wanting of a thing" logically entails "wanting something to do with a thing" to me. Do you disagree? By the way, it would be nice if there were a better way to make generic examples of these kinds of things. What we have is already probably better than English, but it would be nice if there was a pro-sumti that you could use to refer to a generic non-abstract sumti or a generic abstract sumti unambiguously and without having to define everything initially every time. (Other generic things would also be nice, this is just the example that pop= s up in this context.) mu'o mi'e latros. 2010/5/5 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ian Johnson > wrote: > > > > As for that way of defining tolcaudji, that's defined with a {nu}, whic= h > is > > pretty much what I was talking about. That makes perfect logical sense, > > whereas I don't honestly see {mi djica ko'a} for a concrete {ko'a} maki= ng > as > > much sense as {mi djica tu'a ko'a} does. > > But that's only because you have already decided that lo se djica has > to be a nu. > > If "ko'a broda ko'e" makes sense for some brivla, it shouldn't make > any difference if that brivla is a gismu or a lujvo. > > If the brivla "tolcaudji" makes perfect logical sense, then a gismu > with the same meaning should also make perfect logical sense. > > > As for {nelci} et al., I guess it depends on what you really want. I kn= ow > I > > wouldn't like it if {mi nelci ko'a} meant that {ko'a} had to be abstrac= t, > > but then I do like it that {mi djica ko'a} means that {ko'a} has to be > > abstract. > > That's fine, of course, we all have our personal likes and dislikes. > What I was objecting to is saying that an ordinary object as the x2 of > djica wouldn't make "logical sense". To me it's the restriction that > seems arbitrary and pointless. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den. --00c09f8995acf59ef60485ed0f23 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's not so much that I've decided that {lo se djica} is a nu as th= at if it were anything else a nu would be implied, in the way I see it. Put another way, assuming {ko'a} to not be abstract, {mi djica ko'= a} to me IS {mi djica tu'a ko'a} because to me there is always an u= nderlying event, proposition, etc. involved in "wanting a thing".= Wording it in terms of "logical sense" was probably not the best= way to do it, and yet in my mind that's really what's going on: an= y "wanting of a thing" logically entails "wanting something = to do with a thing" to me. Do you disagree?

By the way, it would be nice if there were a better way to make generic= examples of these kinds of things. What we have is already probably better= than English, but it would be nice if there was a pro-sumti that you could= use to refer to a generic non-abstract sumti or a generic abstract sumti u= nambiguously and without having to define everything initially every time. = (Other generic things would also be nice, this is just the example that pop= s up in this context.)

mu'o mi'e latros.
2010/5/5 Jorge = Llamb=EDas <jj= llambias@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote: >
> As for that way of defining tolcaudji, that's defined with a {nu},= which is
> pretty much what I was talking about. That makes perfect logical sense= ,
> whereas I don't honestly see {mi djica ko'a} for a concrete {k= o'a} making as
> much sense as {mi djica tu'a ko'a} does.

But that's only because you have already decided that lo se djica= has
to be a nu.

If "ko'a broda ko'e" makes sense for some brivla, it shou= ldn't make
any difference if that brivla is a gismu or a lujvo.

If the brivla "tolcaudji" makes perfect logical sense, then a gis= mu
with the same meaning should also make perfect logical sense.

> As for {nelci} et al., I guess it depends on what you really want. I k= now I
> wouldn't like it if {mi nelci ko'a} meant that {ko'a} had = to be abstract,
> but then I do like it that {mi djica ko'a} means that {ko'a} h= as to be
> abstract.

That's fine, of course, we all have our personal likes and dislik= es.
What I was objecting to is saying that an ordinary object as the x2 of
djica wouldn't make "logical sense". To me it's the restr= iction that
seems arbitrary and pointless.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--00c09f8995acf59ef60485ed0f23--