[lojban-beginners] Re: di'e gimsnu be zo xanka, was Re: the black hole of keyworditis

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

On Jan 1, 2008 2:15 PM,  <mungojelly@ixkey.info> wrote:
>
> I had a feeling that if I chose a gismu and pointed out how vague the
> definition was, it would provoke a gimsnu.  That's exactly my point,
> that there is nothing between us and increased clarity about these
> meanings except for provoking a discussion, goi fo'a, and recording
> that discussion in a way which benefits future generations of
> learners, goi fo'e.  Fo'a happens regularly anyway, though an argument
> could be made that it should be stimulated a little-- at one gismu a
> week it would take 27 years to touch upon all of them-- but fo'e is
> where we're really failing entirely at the moment.

I had to read that a couple of times before I understood what you meant,
because at first it looked like fo'e=learners. It's interesting that if you
had just used "the first" and "the second", (or "the former" and
"the latter") without any fo'a/fo'e, it would have been more clear.

In any case, lots of gismu, probably most, are clear enough that don't
really need any discussion, and in many cases it is more useful to
discuss bunches of them at a time to notice the regularities (and
the irregularities), so the time frame can be reduced considerably.

> > la meris xanka lo nu  selkavbu  loi  pulji kei lo nu tolselfla ke sutra
> > litru
>
> (Mary is nervous about being caught by the police, while speeding.)

Or

"Mary is nervous of being caught by the police, should she speed."

or

"Mary is nervous about having been caught by the police, while speeding."

or maybe others. Would it also not be possible to say:

la meris xanka lo nu selkavbu lo pulji va'o lo nu tolselfla ke sutra litru
"Mary is nervous about (being/having been caught by the police while
speeding) under conditions XXX."

i.e. with an "under conditions" place inside the x2?

> So it seems like what you're suggesting is that a terxanka is a
> situation in which there is something to worry about, and the selxanka
> is the negative consequence which could result from the terxanka.

Is it possile to say:

  la meris xanka lo nu lo panzi be ko'a na ba'o xruti kei lo nu manku
  "Mary is nervous that her children are not back yet, it being dark."

or does the x2 need to be something that may happen but has not yet
happened? Her children not being back yet is an actual situation, and
is not really a consequence of it being dark. Should all that go in the
x3 and the x2 be left empty with the unstated consequences?

> One thing I wonder about is whether there's an implication that the
> terxanka is a real situation.  That is, you could be explicit by
> putting a "da'i" or a "da'inai" in the terxanka bridi, but which is
> more likely to be implied (absent a clear context)?  It seems like
> "nervous" angles towards "da'inai," a real situation provoking a
> specific response, while "anxious" would suggest to me more "da'i", a
> sort of situation in which someone tends to react with anxiety.

I'm never sure what to make of "under conditions" places. Since {dunku}
and {terpa} don't have them, does that mean that their x2 are more likely
to be real events, as opposed to the x2 of {xanka} which is more likely
a potential event?

mu'o mi'e xorxes