Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:35556) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RVilV-0005ZW-A2; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:56 -0800 Received: by bkbzt19 with SMTP id zt19sf396813bkb.16 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:45 -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: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=X1R7Vvxcv5ldYK691IvXNnhO+K8puDpvTtJkLzcgapg=; b=S8Sc5/SAISUkBX6I2QNe7am19dAfvKMLKHcil7XJmqgY7QrFDj6jlU7v425wgc1Qrh KbZLgDjwRKRuAxrmD8cr24Hx4dbZ85YrqJ3cVwH7mIrwsGYKXp0HC/cpv5wgK5gYfAx3 mW07t2iQsVoLDa1K2oMGPAGkWJP6jkm9kUpVs= Received: by 10.205.122.71 with SMTP id gf7mr158556bkc.20.1322654140733; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:40 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.56.81 with SMTP id x17ls9884185bkg.1.gmail; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.151.133 with SMTP id c5mr363209bkw.8.1322654139616; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.151.133 with SMTP id c5mr363208bkw.8.1322654139587; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com (mail-bw0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j1si1414180bky.2.2011.11.30.03.55.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.46; Received: by mail-bw0-f46.google.com with SMTP id s6so766405bka.19 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.12.68 with SMTP id w4mr1970887bkw.31.1322654139294; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.72.197 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:55:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: MorphemeAddict Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 06:55:17 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: I want an apple To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lytlesw@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lytlesw@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=0003255581c22222de04b2f26aad X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 6203 --0003255581c22222de04b2f26aad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Hunh? What does this mean? Is the first "to" just a typo? > {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 > stevo > > 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. --0003255581c22222de04b2f26aad Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:48 PM, ianek <= span dir=3D"ltr"><janek37@gmail.com= > wrote:
I think it's because in natural languages "I want an apple" i= s 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.
=A0
You have to
simple ways to overcome it:
=A0
Hunh? What does= this mean? Is the first "to" just a typo?
=A0
{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
=A0
stevo=A0

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.
--0003255581c22222de04b2f26aad--