Received: from mail-qc0-f192.google.com ([209.85.216.192]:45948) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1U4wlm-0000mO-1z; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:02:27 -0800 Received: by mail-qc0-f192.google.com with SMTP id g10sf2302615qcs.19 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:02:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=3RldWZCeISrUapu4tHWgOgc2oAg/5R8jdwFbCSB5Wlk=; b=LPF6xJ4g1fIRU4c59AjMB/V5PAFUXfAGsNSDogSc5neuxvsP6oM+Yr+hSPj2xCoDbT xVm5DKNIcRByRucWafTwkTicVQcC1lThDBHLz3PsBwsrFVnvcy2Bl0N9s2rehyMqcG+v WTC/c9aJYq7fdCG4382NUWF+Qa3KBbrwqt45UvM32T/ynofdmKO5FoUTqu+Uaf/SJljT YNEN4d8EWWppOl6Sodyd/Z5I8c2nm5lXYWOMJ4k0d/Sb/j00/klr9OdSW6VlJsPCj2xE ETMCpMnLNsa7Fi1AbVejnKbfXIva1pWqU5Cj73Ss30yALv+slB20WATRK5pTMHabwpC1 HUYA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :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=3RldWZCeISrUapu4tHWgOgc2oAg/5R8jdwFbCSB5Wlk=; b=s1Q4Fb4RwbPjDp2Mso6Z0mOSr0FOuapbfvwCeYOiuO8hqzHJ64NXjZOJkSIup+0PCU X8eFTMf77/hJ3spAPBKv2xXhOE9L9LJysh5/fO68kKv5S8MQ6fAp9Ymi2ymp9s2KgB3p pVDsrAfp6F1kvq7IdlIrtvbAfC6r/wB7+S1FgBisj0P1QkQDsyHC/hZRR5dEAbFXJELK b8WB5t2C/C0AjHgIkZFRVLKtF3r/mqQIwjRLIRZHCdIue7Kj7S7pkGgXYnB+EGUbyQjj wmUrqnmrHWlY5T5btQ42XQu8WV+eEjAytjdO2yefHXG+ShQcJudFqOVfSFrxLYE4JAKa y2ZA== X-Received: by 10.49.60.40 with SMTP id e8mr980082qer.40.1360602131316; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:02:11 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.94.201 with SMTP id de9ls1773770qeb.5.gmail; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:02:09 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.84.167 with SMTP id a7mr1005568qez.11.1360602129920; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:02:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:02:09 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <7d6a9886-0f59-4f2a-b61a-d215ced7cd7b@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <63dcdf07-3c53-4967-b50e-e3c684b4db0b@googlegroups.com> <20130210031456.GF6270@samsa.fritz.box> <20130210130730.GG6270@samsa.fritz.box> <24e9190a-10bf-4bf3-b7b4-df8112d1a7bd@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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="----=_Part_187_5380002.1360602129650" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 14858 ------=_Part_187_5380002.1360602129650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:54:33 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote: > > Yeah, similarly, I pose that djica2 should be a {du'u}. > Heh, i was talking about tsani's views. As for me zo'u my opinion is that all ma'oi NU are useless except one (we can choose any, e.g. {nu}). So there is no difference between {du'u} or {nu}. Additional meanings can be achieved using ZAhO or other tags or just modifying the internal bridi. {ka} and {ni} shoudl be retained for brevity. {jei} is worth retaining too although few use it. > On 11 February 2013 13:00, la gleki > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:20:59 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote: > >> > >> On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: > >>> > On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn wrote: > >>> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote: > >>> > > > With this definition, we can easily create a predicate 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? > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > 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 > >>> > property > >>> > 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 > >>> > > confusing. > >>> > > >>> > It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the type > >>> > restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive. > >>> > >>> > 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 > >>> look > >>> 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 > overall. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > formal > >> 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-place > >> typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well. > >> > >> {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}. > >> > >> 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} (something I > have yet > >> to believe should be a {ka}). > > > > > > if in some parallel world lojbanists would make djica {ka}-like then > how > > would they express "I want you to eat an apple"? > > {mi djica lo ka viska lo nu do citka lo plise}? > > > >> e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4 > >> Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban > >> definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only > occur > >> on the same abstraction-level. > >> e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo > >> > >> Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, > many > >> lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full > >> structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting > >> rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the > jvajvo, FA > >> cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}. > >> > >> Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i > mi > >> kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}. > >> > >> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Lojban Beginners" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email 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=en. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 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-beginners?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_187_5380002.1360602129650 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:54:33 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote:Yeah, similarly, I pose that djica2 s= hould be a {du'u}.

Heh, i was talking about tsani's views= . As for me zo'u my opinion is that all ma'oi NU are useless except one (we= can choose any, e.g. {nu}). So there is no difference between {du'u} or {n= u}. Additional meanings can be achieved using ZAhO or other tags or just mo= difying the internal bridi. {ka} and {ni} shoudl be retained for brevity. {= jei} is worth retaining too although few use it.


On 11 February 2013 13:00, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:20:59 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>>
>> On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wr= ote:
>>>
>>> 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:
>>> > > > With this definition, we can easily create = a predicate meaning "to
>>> > > > look
>>> > > for
>>> > > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i m= i sisku lo ka mi gleki
>>> > > > ce'u}.
>>> > >
>>> > > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instea= d of properties?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > 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 abstr= action is a
>>> > property
>>> > of that sumti.
>>>
>>> Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rat= her 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
>>> > > confusing.
>>> >
>>> > It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] t= hat the type
>>> > restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not pr= escriptive.
>>>
>>> > 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-pre= scriptive 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 ca= n't just be
>>> translated as "to look for properties that make you happy"= , because "to
>>> look
>>> for events that make you happy" is at least an equally goo= d translation.
>>> "to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be mo= re fitting
>>> for all possible interpretations, I suppose.
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should ha= ve made it
>> more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been b= etter overall.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy abou= t 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 real= ly restrict
>>> the type of abstraction here, necessarily.
>>>
>>
>> Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiri= ng some
>> extra verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't invol= ve the formal
>> argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first co= nsidered 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 c= e'u-place
>> typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well.
>>
>> {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}.
>>
>> The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is tha= t 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} (someth= ing I have yet
>> to believe should be a {ka}).
>
>
> if in some parallel world lojbanists would make djica {ka}-like &n= bsp;then how
> would they express "I want you to eat an apple"?
> {mi djica lo ka viska lo nu do citka lo plise}?
>
>> e.g. ctidji =3D x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4
>> Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because th= e Lojban
>> definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers sho= uld only occur
>> on the same abstraction-level.
>> e.g. pampe'o =3D x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo
>>
>> Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type s= elbri, many
>> lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking = the full
>> structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail= counting
>> rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use t= he jvajvo, FA
>> cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi l= o plise}.
>>
>> Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise= } -> {.i mi
>> kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}.
>>
>> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google= Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, = send an
> email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroup= s.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<= /a>.
>
>

--
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-beginners?hl=3Den. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
------=_Part_187_5380002.1360602129650--