On S= at, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:30 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com= > wrote:

On Saturday, Febru= ary 2, 2013 2:45:47 AM UTC+4, Ian Johnson wrote:
Allowing for implicit raising leads to issues when you go to use articles t= o extract places from such bridi. For example, you get {lo jenca} and now i= f you allow for implicit raising you can't tell whether it's an eve= nt or a concrete object. This makes it border on useless by itself because = you don't even know what sort of thing it is. Making the distinction wi= th tu'a/jai is quick and clarifies matters. (That said, the lack of con= sistency in what the gimste deems to be raising and what isn't is a bit= of a problem. fenki is an example of this.)

{lo se prami be mi} and {lo jai se prami be mi} i= s even a "worse" example.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Judson Leste= r <nya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On F= ri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...= @gmail.com> wrote:

What would be the problem with &qu= ot;do jenca mi"? =A0I suppose there's some elided abstraction that= I could use in the x1 place to mean "some event related to you" = - but why would that be neccesary?

Simply because the English "You shoc= ked me!" actually means "What you just did shocked me!". Thi= s has to do with the issue "sumti raising", which has been bandie= d about countless times throughout the years.

I've got two follow on que= stions, then:

The easy one: "tu'a= do jenca mi" would be semantically valid, though? =A0Maybe a little v= ague, but if you've just punched me in the face, maybe clear enough and= readier to hand than "le nu do darxi fo le mi flira cu jenca mi"=

More philosophical: granted that it doesn't make *sense* most of th= e time that do jenca - because people aren't shocking - why isn't t= he convention that such places raise their sumti automatically? =A0Or is th= e idea that maybe there could be a brain-interacting object that fills the = space?

Come to think, would it be reasonable to say something like "= ;lo sidbo jenca mi" or would it still need an abstraction related to &= #39;lo nu sidbo fi mi' ? =A0#2 in play as a "why not?" if not= .

Judson

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com= .

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. =A0
=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginn= ers?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
=A0
=A0