[lojban-beginners] Re: la melpelkre .e le ci cribe

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 5/31/07, Karl Naylor <karl.org@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/07, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > .i la melpelkre goi ko'a cadzu mo'i pa'o le tricu cicfoi
> > {mo'i} seems to me to be either redundant, since {cadzu}
> > already implies movement, or wrong, because it would seem to
> > say that the walking event itself is in movement. {mo'i pa'o}
> > characterizes the whole event, not just ko'a.
>
> By similar reasoning I decided that {mo'i} must be necessary, since
> the path the event moves along is transfixing the forest.  That is,
> the event of walking is moving because the walking-agent (which
> happens to be ko'a) is moving.  I dunno.

I may write a rant about {mo'i} and put it in the wiki one of these days.


> Actually, it occurs to me that if the English definition in the gimste
> is accurate, then {dukse} doesn't seem to work.  {ra glare dukse}
> would mean "it [the porridge] is a hot-kind-of-excess", presumably an
> abbreviation of {ra dukse le ka glare}, "it is an excess of hotness".
> But porridge is not heat, so it can't be an excess of heat.

I would indeed say {ra dukse lo ka glare}, and I interpret {dukse} as
"x1 is too much/excessive in property x2", i.e. in the same vein as
{mutce}, {milxe}, etc.

You're right that the definition as written does seem to suggest
something else, though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes