On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:<= br>
> > > With this definition, we can easily create a pred= icate meaning "to look
> > for
> > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi = gleki ce'u}.
> >
> > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties?<= br> > >
>
> No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about=
> Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an > abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a prope= rty
> of that sumti.

Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rather sure, it overrides quite some learning material, so you have to deal with
alternative views as well..

> > That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is con= fusing.
>

> It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the typ= e

> restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive.<= br>

> That being said, the gismu list simply tells us that the x2= must be an
> abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state= . I
> disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature,= am
> entitled to use a ka-abstraction there.

Yes, you are. but in {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u} you didn't say= that the
{ce'u} place is to be a ka-abstraction. Therefore, this can't just be
translated as "to look for properties that make you happy", because "to loo= k
for events that make you happy" is at least an equally good translation. "to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be more fitting
for all possible interpretations, I suppose.

I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made= it more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better ove= rall.

Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event
you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectly valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restrict
the type of abstraction here, necessarily.

Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some= extra verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the forma= l argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a = new system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 = is a {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain= ce'u. When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-pl= ace typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well.

{.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}.

<= div>

The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system = is that is makes producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the = type -dji, the jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (some= thing I have yet to believe should be a {ka}).