[lojban-beginners] Re: learning to climb on floors

["John Daigle" <johnpdaigle@gmail.com>]

I'm not understanding how "cilre fi lo nu cpare" removes the ambiguity. x1 is learning by the method of crawling, but it isn't clear what x2 is.  In other words, connor could be learning where things are in the house by crawling, or learning the difference between carpet and hardwood, or anything.

la kan,r. cilre le zu'o cpare le loldi (or lo zu'o cpare le loldi) is just as bad. Now Connor is learning about the activity of crawling, but what we want is for connor to learn to be a crawler.

Maybe 

la kan,r. binxo le cpare be le loldi

or 

la kan,r. binxo le cpare be le loldi lo zu'o cpare

captures the idea of aquiring a skill better?

It seems like an entire book for 3-5 year olds could focus on the verb "clire", as in "Connor learns by walking. He learns to keep his balance. He learns about steps. He learns about (etc.)

On 10/23/07, Wim Coenen <wcoenen@gmail.com> wrote:

2007/10/23, John Daigle <johnpdaigle@gmail.com>:

In re: 'cilre cpare'

If x1 is "learning-crawling" does this imply that x1 is both learning and crawling, with an emphasis on crawling? Could this translate as  "practicing crawling"? Or is this tandu just meaningless?

The place structure of "cilre cpare" is that of the last gismu, "cpare". "cilre" modifies the meaning of "cpare", but lojban does not specify how. "mi cilre cpare" may mean:
"I (am learning to) crawl"

But It could also be interpreted as:
"I crawl (as a demonstration, to teach crawling)".

It is safer to avoid tanru if you don't want to be ambiguous. This is why Pierre rewrote your example as " la kan,r. cilre fi lo nu cpare".

mu'o mi'e .uim

-- 
John Daigle