On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> > > With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to look
> > for
> > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u}.
> >
> > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties?
> >
>
> No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about
> Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an
> abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a property
> of that sumti.
Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rather sure,
it overrides quite some learning material, so you have to deal with
alternative views as well..
> > That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is confusing.
>
> It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the type
> restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive.
> That being said, the gismu list simply tells us that the x2 must be an
> abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state. I
> disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature, am
> entitled to use a ka-abstraction there.
Yes, you are. but in {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u} you didn't say that the
{ce'u} place is to be a ka-abstraction. Therefore, this can't just be
translated as "to look for properties that make you happy", because "to look
for events that make you happy" is at least an equally good translation.
"to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be more fitting
for all possible interpretations, I suppose.
Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event
you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectly
valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restrict
the type of abstraction here, necessarily.
v4hn
Attachment:
pgpYZDXNBDjW4.pgp
Description: PGP signature