Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why no "about" brivla?

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4 December 2012 10:12, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3 December 2012 04:15, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park.annie@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"?
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd like to know that myself.
>>
>> If I wrote a book in dedication to koha and made that explicit on a
>> page, a link would have been created between the book and koha.
>> Suppose koha is a high-profile celebrity and my book happens to be
>> monumentally controversial for its own content; koha's manager doesn't
>> appreciate the publicized unduly link and calls me demanding that {lo
>> cukta co'u srana ko'a tai zo'e}, where {zo'e} refers to the fact that
>> koha's name is on the book's particular page unrelated to the book's
>> topic itself.
>>
>> mu'o
>
>
> Not only is that example extremely contrived, it is also not an example of
> srana being "dedicated to", and I highly doubt any manager would say "A book
> is completed pertinent to ko'a in the obvious form" to yell at someone for
> putting a name in a book. More likely they'd just say "Why is {name}'s name
> in you book? I want it out, NOW!"

Still, "x1 is dedicated to x2" is a kind of relation, just as "x1
plans x2 for process x3" (platu) is.

Yes, but neither of those are srana.
 

  In my opinion the discussion here defines ckini too broadly.  srana has a broad meaning, and it's basically the relationship that "pe/ne" has with the two sumti have.  ckini, on the other hand, is more specifically a kinship relationship.  The x1 and x2 would basically have to belong to the same set, or at best one being a member of the superset of the other.  For example, I don't think that "la djan" and "lo zdani be la djan" would properly be described as being a ckini relationship, despite the fact you could argue  that "la djan ckini lo zdani be la djan lo nu se zdani" is valid and true.  But I could say something like "lo mlatu cu ckini lo cinfo lo nu jutsi".  The preceding is just my opinion. YMMV

     --gejyspa

-- 
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.