[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban-beginners] search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?
doi tsani
I see things a bit different. I believe that kakne2 and djica2 should
be abstracts
({ka} and {du'u}), but for their intensionality. gleki2, on the other
hand, is as
concrete an event as it can be, not an abstract property or
proposition. Consider
{mi gleki so'i lo nu mi klama lo zdani be mi}
Also, your
{mi gleki lo ka se li'i do citka lo plise} instead of
{mi gleki lo nu do citka lo plise}
is like
{mi klama lo stuzi be lo zdani be mi} instead of
{mi klama lo zdani be mi}
or
"I saw an image of the sun setting" instead of
"I saw the sun setting",
This extreme typing of sumti places just creates hindrances in
expression without
adding anything to the speaker's or listener's understanding of the
world. I already
know that it is my experience of an event that can bring me happiness about it,
not somebody else's, and that what determines whether someone is tall or short
is his/her body, not his/her friendliness.
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
On 10 February 2013 10:20, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made it
> more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better overall.
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some extra
> verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the formal
> argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a new
> system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 is a
> {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u.
> When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place
> typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well.
>
> {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}.
>
> The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is that is makes
> producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the type -dji, the
> jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (something I have yet
> to believe should be a {ka}).
> e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4
> Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban
> definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur
> on the same abstraction-level.
> e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo
>
> Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, many
> lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full
> structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting
> rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA
> cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}.
>
> Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i mi
> kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}.
>
> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
On 10 February 2013 10:20, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made it
> more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better overall.
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some extra
> verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the formal
> argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a new
> system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 is a
> {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u.
> When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place
> typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well.
>
> {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}.
>
> The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is that is makes
> producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the type -dji, the
> jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (something I have yet
> to believe should be a {ka}).
> e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4
> Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban
> definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur
> on the same abstraction-level.
> e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo
>
> Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, many
> lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full
> structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting
> rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA
> cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}.
>
> Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i mi
> kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}.
>
> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
On 10 February 2013 10:20, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 February 2013 08:07, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made it
> more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better overall.
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some extra
> verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the formal
> argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a new
> system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 is a
> {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u.
> When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place
> typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well.
>
> {.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}.
>
> The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is that is makes
> producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the type -dji, the
> jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (something I have yet
> to believe should be a {ka}).
> e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4
> Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban
> definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur
> on the same abstraction-level.
> e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo
>
> Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, many
> lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full
> structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting
> rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA
> cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}.
>
> Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i mi
> kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}.
>
> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.