Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Adam Lopresto <adamlopresto@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Oren <get.oren@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Ian and Lindar: Let me rephrase this you don't seem to hear what I'm saying.
>
> "1. It's written out in the definition very plainly.
> djuno - x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology
> x4."
>
> I don't just mean there's an issue with how the sumti are labelled in
> the gismu list. Those are trivial to modify. I mean there's no way of
> knowing what gismu have those ka's and nu's built into them, and which
> need them explicitly added in certain sumti positions.

No way other than how they're labeled in the gismu list, or by reading
and understanding them. But again, I think the fundamental problem is
that it isn't that some have a {ka} or {nu} *built in*, it's that
they're of different types.

> For example, take a look at nandu and bajra.
>
> { mi kakne lo bajra } is nonsensical
> { mi kakne lo nu bajra } is sensical

Right. bajra1 is something that runs, {nu bajra kei}1 is an event.
kakne2 is an event, not something that runs.

> { mi kakne lo nandu } is sensical
> { mi kakne lo nu nandu } (I assume) is nonsensical or overspecified.

Yes. The definition of {nandu} probably should be rephrased to make it
more clear that nandu1 is an event (the thing you said you didn't have
trouble with). If we did define it as

x1 (event) is difficult/hard/challenging for x2 (agent) under
conditions x3 (event/state)

then would it make more sense to you?

But again, the distinction between events and objects isn't a matter
of inserting keywords. Does it bother you that *{mi pinxe lo jubme}
would also be considered semantic nonsense, because tables aren't the
sort of thing that one can drink?

> That is, while its true that "There are no conventional
> parts-of-speech distinctions like adjectives or nouns in Lojban,"
> there are still undeniable semantic roles that we expect -- and reject
> -- from gismu when allocated to sumti placement.
>
> I think it's great that we all know from the definition that { se
> kakne } is an event/state (so it should have a nu), but I don't like
> that there are unwritten rules for which gismu have event/state built
> into them. For example, I wouldn't have anticipated the bajra/nandu
> discrepancy shown above. I wish for something like:
>
> bajra - is a process (pu'u), is a state (za'i)

No! bajra1 is the runner. You can talk about a process of something
running {pu'u barja kei}, or a state of something running {za'i bajra
kei}, or an event of something running, but none of them are something
that runs.

> nandu - is an event (nu)

nandu1 is something that is difficult to do (and anything that can be
done is an event, in lojban terms). So nandu1 is limited to events.
Similarly, nandu2 is some agent that (could or would) attempt to do
the event in nandu1. Again, putting an explicit "(event)" into the
definition of {nandu} would be good.

> See what I mean?

I'm afraid I honestly don't, and I've tried. {lo bajra} is something
that fills the x1 of "x1 runs on surface x2 with limbs x3 and gait
x4". {lo kakne} is something that fills the x1 of "x1 can perform
action x2 under conditions x3". {lo se kakne} is something that can
fill the x2 thereof. {lo kakne ku bajra} makes sense (something that
can be capable can also run), but *{lo se kakne ku bajra} doesn't (an
event someone is capable of doing isn't the sort of thing that can
run; it has no legs at all!).

-- 
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.