Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:35186) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RVY3Z-00008Z-Im; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:50 -0800 Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15sf39794bkb.16 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:41 -0800 (PST) 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:date :message-id:subject:from: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=/k/KwvxFJR4EBzCPEzkMq6ymdYeCzHfmYt1HcRuhTfs=; b=L72fbBcZtGEMw5ywUaa/7ZmCXLLWh0g4cKnKD56HNtD8Lk9/h93fB1ETJc8VoKS8w1 iKHS0b54lDLsz8mF3sWA5inxyTrXaFaO+0lt4UHMGuSFfqqmwgfNBZhDmhwfJTri2Msn PanEWbuRPgBvfHyL2pF5b1BL6JGeIeETmmG4o= Received: by 10.204.130.27 with SMTP id q27mr7402672bks.30.1322612977227; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.130.207 with SMTP id u15ls7980913bks.0.gmail; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.151.133 with SMTP id c5mr4739495bkw.8.1322612976193; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.151.133 with SMTP id c5mr4739494bkw.8.1322612976168; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f51.google.com (mail-bw0-f51.google.com [209.85.214.51]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y22si128088bkf.3.2011.11.29.16.29.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.51; Received: by bkat8 with SMTP id t8so82899bka.24 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.15.75 with SMTP id j11mr29688885bka.25.1322612975975; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.81.66 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:29:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:29:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: I want an apple From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00235433307e9bbee604b2e8d42f X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 5827 --00235433307e9bbee604b2e8d42f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 {jai djica} is the wrong way of doing the raising, because the x1 is not an event. The proper way of doing the raising with the x1 of djica as the x1 of the result is unfortunately extremely clunky: {se jai se djica}. Philosophically however you're right. mu'o mi'e latros On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:48 PM, ianek wrote: > I think it's because in natural languages "I want an apple" is a > mental abbreviation. Lojban tries to deal with implicit things like > that. As you quoted, wanting an object is wanting to possess or do > something else with an object. So it's more logical definition to > define {djica} in one way instead of making it ambiguous. You have to > simple ways to overcome it: {mi jai djica lo plise}, {mi ctidji lo > plise}, {mi djica tu'a lo plise}, {mi djica lo nu citka lo plise} or > even {mi plisyctidji} :) > > mu'o mi'e ianek > > On Nov 29, 11:19 pm, MorphemeAddict wrote: > > Someone (David Gowers?) recently (Aug. 17, 2011?) wrote: > > > > "You have an object in troci x2, but troci x2 is an abstraction. This is > > the same problem as with {mi djica lo plise} -- you don't desire an > apple, > > you desire to possess an apple, or eat an apple... This is known as sumti > > raising. You need to put an abstraction in x2, then you will not be > > sumti-raising -- and will make sense, besides." > > > > I've wondered about this before. Why is wanting an object called > > sumti-raising? Why must the object (x2?) of {djica} be an abstraction? Is > > it simply because that's how the word was defined? If so, why was it > > defined that way? > > > > stevo > > -- > 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=en. > > -- 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=en. --00235433307e9bbee604b2e8d42f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {jai djica} is the wrong way of doing the raising, because the x1 is not an= event. The proper way of doing the raising with the x1 of djica as the x1 = of the result is unfortunately extremely clunky: {se jai se djica}.

Philosophically however you're right.

mu'o mi'e latros
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:48 PM, ianek <janek37@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it's because in natural languag= es "I want an apple" is a
mental abbreviation. Lojban tries to deal with implicit things like
that. As you quoted, wanting an object is wanting to possess or do
something else with an object. So it's more logical definition to
define {djica} in one way instead of making it ambiguous. You have to
simple ways to overcome it: {mi jai djica lo plise}, {mi ctidji lo
plise}, {mi djica tu'a lo plise}, {mi djica lo nu citka lo plise} or even {mi plisyctidji} :)

mu'o mi'e ianek

On Nov 29, 11:19=A0pm, MorphemeAddict <
lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone (David Gowers?) recently (Aug. 17, 2011?) wrote:
>
> "You have an object in troci x2, but troci x2 is an abstraction. = This is
> the same problem as with {mi djica lo plise} -- you don't desire a= n apple,
> you desire to possess an apple, or eat an apple... This is known as su= mti
> raising. You need to put an abstraction in x2, then you will not be > sumti-raising -- and will make sense, besides."
>
> I've wondered about this before. Why is wanting an object called > sumti-raising? Why must the object (x2?) of {djica} be an abstraction?= Is
> it simply because that's how the word was defined? If so, why was = it
> defined that way?
>
> stevo

--
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.
--00235433307e9bbee604b2e8d42f--