|
On 1/12/2013 10:10 AM, Eitan Postavsky
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Compu-Celebi <compu-celebi@valint.net>
wrote:
On 1/11/2013 4:55 PM, Eitan Postavsky wrote:
3) terserspaji: sp2 is surprised by step
st3 while traversing stairs, surprised either that it
exists or that it doesn't exist; sp2 unexpectedly hits
floor when expecting to step on step st3; sp2
unexpectedly hits step st3 when expecting to step on
floor.
Every
terserspaji must be an unexpected stepping, not a
surprised stepper, because every terserspaji
is a spaji and every spaji is a
surprising/startling/unexpected event/action, and terserti
are neither events/actions nor spaji. Therefore,
regardless of whether the arguments are mentioned in the
order in which you intended their places to be (which I
cannot ascertain because "x1" and "x2" are excluded), your
place structure is flawed.
Ah, yes, must have had a bit of a brainfart. This lujvo is
the one I spent the least time thinking about :S Thanks for
your patience.
Conversely, composing my previous
response took a few hours.
I propose this
alternative (which includes the serti, also,
as an argument):
x1=sp1
is an event/action of x2=sp2 unexpectedly
stepping off stairs/stairway/steps x3=st2, instead of onto
step x4=st3, or onto step x3=st4, instead of off stairs/stairway/steps x3=st2
You are right to include st1 (I believe you meant st1, not
st2).
I did, because the argument was intended
to refer to the serti, not the selserti. I edited
the response so many times that, despite the quantity of time that
was spent, I was careless about that detail.
That will probably be of more use than st3 when complaining
to your friends about how a stupidly designed staircase made
you stub your toe. I propose, then, that st3 be dropped, for,
in the language of the CLL chapter Dog House and White House,
st1 and st3 are mutually dependent places (it's almost always
the topmost or bottommost step that gets you).
I was always ambivalent about including
the serti argument but proposed it in case of acceptance
and to ascertain others' opinions.
However, I question the separation of sp1 from the rest of the
bridi. What's the use of x1 in your proposed place structure?
It just gets in the way.
Whether it is useful does not affect
whether it is mandatory, and any predicate whose selbri is
{terserspaji} can exclude the first argument.
My idea was to have it be some sort of implicit-abstraction
lujvo. But then you object that having an implicit-abstraction
lujvo with the x1 of the tertau being the abstraction is
confusing, rightly so, so perhaps this:
serselspaji: sp2, traversing stairs/stairway/steps st1, gets
startled by taking a step/stride and the ground not being at
the expected level for the landing foot/terdzu, e.g. by
expecting one more step to go when it has already finished the
staircase.
(I feel comfortable using "it" for agents when talking about
place structures.)
That /is/ the intended order of places, x1=sp2 and x2=st1.
Interesting, a bit of {cadzu} is creeping in there... Yes,
this is a torturedly-implicit abstraction indeed. But, since
I've sent this word out there already, I'll just go right
ahead and hit Send.
I was not even thinking about implicit
abstractions, nor do I recollect having previously encountered the
term "implicit abstraction." However, I do object to such
implicit abstractions, not only because they are confusing but
because every lujvo's first argument must be its tertau's.
Permitting exceptions would be contrary to Lojban's principles.
I actually considered that alternative lujvo, but not
significantly. Now that I have thoroughly done so, I accept it
but would include the selserti, as the third argument. I
do not know why you decided to exclude it for this lujvo.
That you used "landing," rather than "hitting," is an
interesting coincidence, because your original place structure
used "hits" and I would have replaced that with "lands on,"
because the verb "hit" also means "strike." Ironically, my
alternative used "stepping."
I prefer "he/it/she" and habitually use virgules to refer
to stasu when I do not know whether it is soup or stew.
4) And finally, an experiment. Here's
yet another of these lujvo: {selsnemojmo'i}. What
meaning do you think I have in mind for it?
I conjecture that it is "déjà
vu," although {selsneselmojmo'i} is better, because
what is recollected is the memory, not the entity that
does the recollecting, and eliding one "sel" but not the
other would be inconsistent.
Hmm, good guess, that is another common memory defect. Not
what I was thinking of, though. It's quite possible that what
I'm thinking of is simply unguessable, but I have a hint in
mind.
What is the hint?
|