[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: Standards and states
>===== Original Message From "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> =====
>On 8/14/07, ANDREW PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>> {.i pycy cusku lu .ieru'e .oiru'e ku'i by puza klama ti gi'e cusku lu lo
melbi ba'e cmalu u'i bo guzmrkukurbita bo purdi cu se ponse do doi paf li'u
li'u
>>
>> .i lu do'i jetnu jufra .i sa'e do'i jetnu lo za'i karbi fi le so'i guzme
purdi pe by li'u se cusku ko'e}
>>
>> The last sentence was originally: 'Especially compared to his his fields of
pumpkins.
>>
>> The X2 in {jetnu} should be a standard/epistemology/metaphysics. Can the
{lo za'i} abstraction be used here as the standard of comparison?
>
>I'm not very clear on what is meant to go in the x2 of jetnu, but perhaps
>{.i sa'e cmalu fi le so'i guzme purdi pe by} would have done. (That also
>solves the problem that {do'i} is being used to refer to an utterance
>inside a quotation, which is not its normal use.)
I like your solution, and will use it, but in defense of "doi", that's
pretty much precisely what doi is used for.... to quote from the LRG, Cahpter
7:
> The remaining two cmavo, ``dei'' and ``do'i'', refer respectively to the
very
> utterance that the speaker is uttering, and to some vague or unspecified
> utterance uttered by someone at some time:
...
> 4.5) do'i jetnu jufra
> Some-utterance is-a-true sentence.
> That's true (where ``that'' is not necessarily what
> was just said
Mama Bear was referring to the utterance of Ben (B) spoken to Papa.
I could have possibly used one of the counting anaphora, but they get
confusing when dealing with nested sumtis. I could have used an assignable
KOhA, but Papa didn't assign the quote a value. So I chose to use "do'i" and
let the hearer, Papa, work it out.
>
>It's also not very clear to me why a comparison would be a state. I would
have
>said it was an achievement, eventually a process, perhaps it could even be an
>activity, but a state is the last event-type I would classify it as.
>
Okay, if I can remember my rationale from so long ago: "It's okay to hurt
X" is a true statement in a state of "you are being attacked by X". Remove
that state, the utterance is no longer true (for the sake of argument).
Similarly, when a state of comparison exists between Papa's patch and Ben's
patches, Ben's statement is true, but not when you are in a state of (for
example), dreaming, or just considered on its own, with no implied comparison
(although Mama's first statement says that is is objectively true without
qualification.
--gejyspa