[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] do NU broda
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] do NU broda
- From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:10:46 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1aPeGCCdvrOKXM5+Gi3wc5fWYZHIm1ktvDF3Sk/Ufzs=; b=v+eh4s0Xd9N2VwniQleqgqhCYWP8yjUKW4a/Vsmi0IE0mf1UujFC69Xg3+oQPwA7DF PkCylsdqFYMYU6xWVkxB0MVqjzgd7hZD6yxuYAqwv75YcFDzkBf2pPleM2xuJYBZ9ooT afK2cfp9W2EwOkK0dfKfrhA5Az1yJpMLXWfvQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YmwHwKy3mVbrpVEntqwV+iHPTdjSXFYE73ZaIesieFLopdYQNy7u47nxmjBG/WHlea xVb7JgEueJklWqURupSIoy7sTM7HRtUM0mYaexmw6mhTJ6EoqKS/J4R5UWEM5eMBRT7e 4hnhVh9v8bqs+X38T/3bt2r+XRu6IY/7edYXI=
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
I know "do ka melbi" may sound odd and is actually considered invalid
in Lojbanistan. But how about "do za'i melbi" and "do zu'o melbi", by
way of marking off the Thai "koon suay" (in which "suay" is an
adjective) from the verb-based Guarani (a language spoken in Southern
America) "nde pora~" (in which "pora~" is a verb or a non-adjective
predicate) or vice versa?
I personally don't have a problem with depicting a person as a
phenomenon that can be seen as a state or an activity itself. If you
are beautiful, *you* are the state of a body being beautiful. If you
smile, *you* are the activity of a body smiling. "do goi lo nu da
melbi je cisma goi do". And if I speak to *you*, I may as well be
speaking to a state or an activity (or other forms of phenomenological
entities) from which I may have a conscious response on the part of
the/'your' brain situated in that state or activity. I, the
'observer/seer', myself is a state/activity in which a certain
surrounding quality of yours is/becomes a form of beauty.
Such concepts as "you" or "I" is abstractive in itself. It is
abstracted as the center of consciousness, of emotion, of body, of
behaviour etc. from a given sequence of either physical or mental
events. If I get involved in a car accident and my brain gets severely
damaged, at least the mental 'center' of 'my' existence would very
much be likely to alter, unable to perceive and respond in the same
way I previously used to do. People around me, then, wouldn't be able
to see the same 'me' when they speak to 'me', because there would lack
the very phenomenological/behavioural qualities from which the old
'me' could be abstracted. 'I' of the post-accident is a state/activity
of consciousness/emotion/body/behaviour/etc. which is different from
what could be abstracted previously i.e. 'I' of the pre-accident.
For this reason, I don't see much of a difference between "do" and
"tu'a do" in the aforementioned case. Both can be the x1 of "za'i
melbi" or "zu'o melbi", pe'i.
mu'o se ckire tavla mi'e tijlan