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

[ianek <janek37@gmail.com>]

I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
is somewhat overused.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 5 Gru, 04:33, Michael Turniansky <mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 4 December 2012 10:12, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On 3 December 2012 04:15, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park.an...@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.