[lojban-beginners] Re: Strange modals

[turnip <turnip@bcpl.net>]

>===== Original Message From "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com> =====
>coi ro do
>
>I've been reviewing modals.  Most are ok, but there are a few which I find
>troublesome:
>
>1) {pa'a} comes from {panra} which is defined as 'x1 parallels x2 differing
>only in property x3 (ka; jo'u/fa'u term) by standard/geometry x4'.  What does
>'parallels' mean?  From the example on the Wiki (pei da'i mi basygau fi le mi
>mulno xekri taxfu fe lo mulno blabi taxfu pa'a tu'a la xavier What do you 
think
>of me replacing my all-black clothes with all-white clothes, like Xavier?), I
>understand that 'parallels' really means 'is similar to'.  Is that the case?
>Then why doesn't it say so?

  Note the difference between simsa and panra, specifically the x3 part.  
"simsa" is alike in only one aspect, while panra is alike in every respect 
EXCEPT one.  As such, you are right, fi'o simsa  tu'a la xavier would make 
more sense in this sentence, since the only thing they would have in common is 
the wearing of white clothes.   Lines that are parallel differ onlyby their 
postion in space.  A parallel universe might be the same except that Lincoln 
didn't get shot, etc.  So I'd be hard pressed to find a good example where 
pa'a fits.  In the example sentence, it seems to be implying that I'd be 
almost the same as Xavier once I make that switch, differing only the fact of 
being me, not him.



>
>Also, what does the (jo'u/fa'u) mean?
>

  So the "fa'u" means that you could say mi panra do lo ka vrude fa'u palci 
(I'm just like you except that I'm good where you are evil.)  I'm not sure how 
you would use jo'u there though.


>2) {kai} comes from {ckaji}, as does {ka}.  In a sentence like (kai le karce 
cu
>xamgu se kai le ka skari. The car is good in the property of its colour) 
isn't
>there a redundancy?  The sentence actually seems to say 'The car is good in 
the
>property of the property of its colour'.
>

  Just like the x2 of ckaji has to be a "ka" property, so does the argument to 
sekai.  This about "ka" as being equivalent to the ending -ness in English.  
You can say, "I have a property of goodness (lo ka vrude)", but not "I have 
the property of good" (lo vrude).  So too, you are saying here the car is good 
in the property of 'colorness'" (I assume that the "kai" at the front was an 
error)

>3) {ma'e} comes from {marji} which is defines as 'x1 is material/stuff/matter
>of type/composition including x2 in shape/form x3'. So how come {ma'e} in {mi
>pilno lo rokci lo nu finti lo larcu dacti kei ma'e ta. I use rock to create
>objects of art, including that one over there} means 'including'?
>

I think the confusion here is with the English translation.  It would more 
literally read "I use rocks to create artworks, _with 
thing-composed-of-matter:that one._"  In other words, "ta" refers to a 
particular piece of work that is composed of some matter (unspecified, but 
implying  rock).  I don't consider that the greatest sentence, but then, like 
pa'a, it's a very difficult word to use in the plain (non se-) form.

>4) {di'o} comes from {diklo}.  Was the issue raised in
>http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Issues+with+checkpointed+BPFK+
sections&bl
>ever resolved?  I must admit I still have problems knowing when to use {di'o}
>and when to use {tu'i}.
>
>

  I of course answered that question directly in another thread. It is MY 
understanding of the definition of diklo (and hence, di'o) that the X1 piece 
(di'o) refers to something that is localized, the X2 piece (sedi'o) refers to 
the placed it is localized to, and the X3 piece (tedi'o) is the wider range of 
stuff.  Xorxes seems to agree that is a reasonable understanding.  That 
discussion can also be found, in an expanded form in the lojban-beginners 
archive in The Goldilocks thread.

  As for tu'i/stuzi, that would be for something that is always located 
somewhere (US is in North America, My house is on Chestnut Street, etc.)

           --gejyspa


            --gejyspa