[lojban-beginners] Re: I want an apple

[ianek <janek37@gmail.com>]

I think it's because in natural languages "I want an apple" is a
mental abbreviation. Lojban tries to deal with implicit things like
that. As you quoted, wanting an object is wanting to possess or do
something else with an object. So it's more logical definition to
define {djica} in one way instead of making it ambiguous. You have to
simple ways to overcome it: {mi jai djica lo plise}, {mi ctidji lo
plise}, {mi djica tu'a lo plise}, {mi djica lo nu citka lo plise} or
even {mi plisyctidji} :)

mu'o mi'e ianek

On Nov 29, 11:19 pm, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone (David Gowers?) recently (Aug. 17, 2011?) wrote:
>
> "You have an object in troci x2, but troci x2 is an abstraction. This is
> the same problem as with {mi djica lo plise} -- you don't desire an apple,
> you desire to possess an apple, or eat an apple... This is known as sumti
> raising. You need to put an abstraction in x2, then you will not be
> sumti-raising -- and will make sense, besides."
>
> I've wondered about this before. Why is wanting an object called
> sumti-raising? Why must the object (x2?) of {djica} be an abstraction? Is
> it simply because that's how the word was defined? If so, why was it
> defined that way?
>
> stevo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.