It's not that {djuno}'s x2 has some hidden {du'u= } that gets magically inserted into it, it's just that that's the k= ind of thing that's expected based on the definition. =A0It's like = saying "why doesn't it explicitly warn me that {gerku}'s x1 mu= st be a dog for my sentences to make sense". =A0It's kind of silly= to say such a thing. =A0x1 of gerku is expected to be a dog, x2 of djica i= s expected to be an event that is desired, and x2 of djuno is expected to b= e a fact (which is conveniently expressed with a {lo du'u}. =A0You coul= d just as easily say "mi djuno lo fatci be fa ...", but we have a= shortcut of {du'u}).

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Adam Loprest= o <adamlopre= sto@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Oren <get.oren@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Ian and Lindar: Let me rephrase this you don't seem to hear what = I'm saying.
>
> "1. It's written out in the definition very plainly.
> djuno - x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemolog= y
> x4."
>
> I don't just mean there's an issue with how the sumti are labe= lled in
> the gismu list. Those are trivial to modify. I mean there's no way= of
> knowing what gismu have those ka's and nu's built into them, a= nd which
> need them explicitly added in certain sumti positions.

No way other than how they're labeled in the gismu list, or by re= ading
and understanding them. But again, I think the fundamental problem is
that it isn't that some have a {ka} or {nu} *built in*, it's that they're of different types.

> For example, take a look at nandu and bajra.
>
> { mi kakne lo bajra } is nonsensical
> { mi kakne lo nu bajra } is sensical

Right. bajra1 is something that runs, {nu bajra kei}1 is an event. kakne2 is an event, not something that runs.

> { mi kakne lo nandu } is sensical
> { mi kakne lo nu nandu } (I assume) is nonsensical or overspecified.

Yes. The definition of {nandu} probably should be rephrased to make i= t
more clear that nandu1 is an event (the thing you said you didn't have<= br> trouble with). If we did define it as

x1 (event) is difficult/hard/challenging for x2 (agent) under
conditions x3 (event/state)

then would it make more sense to you?

But again, the distinction between events and objects isn't a matter of inserting keywords. Does it bother you that *{mi pinxe lo jubme}
would also be considered semantic nonsense, because tables aren't the sort of thing that one can drink?

> That is, while its true that "There are no conventional
> parts-of-speech distinctions like adjectives or nouns in Lojban,"=
> there are still undeniable semantic roles that we expect -- and reject=
> -- from gismu when allocated to sumti placement.
>
> I think it's great that we all know from the definition that { se<= br> > kakne } is an event/state (so it should have a nu), but I don't li= ke
> that there are unwritten rules for which gismu have event/state built<= br> > into them. For example, I wouldn't have anticipated the bajra/nand= u
> discrepancy shown above. I wish for something like:
>
> bajra - is a process (pu'u), is a state (za'i)

No! bajra1 is the runner. You can talk about a process of something running {pu'u barja kei}, or a state of something running {za'i baj= ra
kei}, or an event of something running, but none of them are something
that runs.

> nandu - is an event (nu)

nandu1 is something that is difficult to do (and anything that can be=
done is an event, in lojban terms). So nandu1 is limited to events.
Similarly, nandu2 is some agent that (could or would) attempt to do
the event in nandu1. Again, putting an explicit "(event)" into th= e
definition of {nandu} would be good.

> See what I mean?

I'm afraid I honestly don't, and I've tried. {lo bajra} is some= thing
that fills the x1 of "x1 runs on surface x2 with limbs x3 and gait
x4". {lo kakne} is something that fills the x1 of "x1 can perform=
action x2 under conditions x3". {lo se kakne} is something that can fill the x2 thereof. {lo kakne ku bajra} makes sense (something that
can be capable can also run), but *{lo se kakne ku bajra} doesn't (an event someone is capable of doing isn't the sort of thing that can
run; it has no legs at all!).

--

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@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.