[lojban-beginners] Re: tanru order

["Michael Turniansky" <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> When you have things like {vajni mutce} and {manku mulno}, you're
>>>> usually going to want to reverse those, right?
>>>
>>> Why? They would be something like {mutce be lo ka vajni} and
>>> {mulno be lo ka manku}. The expansion for the other order is
>>> perhaps also possible, but more compicated.
>>
>> I'm not sure I was clear here. I simply meant to ask whether {mutce
>> vajni} and {mulno manku} would usually be the better order.
>
> Yes, that's how I understood the question. Why would that
> be the better order, given that it requires a more complex
> interpretation?
>
>>>> iseja'ebo na _vajni mutce_ fa le du'u porsi makau ki'u le nu abu ka'e
>>>> spuda no le re preti
>>>
>>>> But I think the first, since the x1 is
>>>> filled, is actually incorrect, since the fact is ke not important
>>>> ke'e, not ke not extreme ke'e.
>>>
>>> Its "not (extreme in importance)", isn't it?
>>
>> Yes, where the "importance" is the main concept, and thus belongs in
>> the tertau. Can't {mutce vajni} naturally mean "extreme in importance"
>> in context?
>
> What if it was "lacking in importance"? What is the main
> concept there, and would that be better as {vajni claxu} or as
> {claxu vajni}?
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

  You know, xorxes, I think I can finally put my finger on what's
always bothered me about your interpretations of those tanru
orderings.  IF the tanru had been "ka vajni kei mutce" (An
importance-type of muchness") THEN I could see your POV that it means
"mutce be lo ka vajni")  But without the ka, "vajni mutce" means (to
me) an important muchness,  that is to say, that the extreme thing
itself is important, but not necessarily that it extreme in the
quailty of being important.  For example, I can easily see "mi vajni
mutce be lo ka bebna" --- I am an important superfool.  Things in the
seltau position tend to be interpreted adjectivally/adverbially, as
well they should be, since they are supposed to modify the tertau
(which would therefore be treated nounally, verbally, (or adverbially
if they followed by another brivla))  Without the ka in the tanru, it
also requires mental massaging to get "vajni mutce" into "mutce be lo
ka vajni".  I think one test to figure out which gismu belongs in the
tertau spot is to figure out which is more germaine.  And the easiest
way to test that is to test dropping each term from the sentenc,e and
see which one most obscures the meaning when it is left out:

na vajni fa le du'u porsi makau ki'u le nu abu ka'e
spuda no le re preti

na mutce fa le du'u porsi makau ki'u le nu abu ka'e
spuda no le re preti

  Hmmm... we either have something that's not important or something
that's not much.  It's a close call in this case, but I think "vajni"
wins out as being more germaine, IMHO

                   ---gejyspa