Re: [lojban-beginners] Proposed change to smart.fm items

[Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>]

It's not so much that I've decided that {lo se djica} is a nu as that if it were anything else a nu would be implied, in the way I see it. 
Put another way, assuming {ko'a} to not be abstract, {mi djica ko'a} to me IS {mi djica tu'a ko'a} because to me there is always an underlying event, proposition, etc. involved in "wanting a thing". Wording it in terms of "logical sense" was probably not the best way to do it, and yet in my mind that's really what's going on: any "wanting of a thing" logically entails "wanting something to do with a thing" to me. Do you disagree? 

By the way, it would be nice if there were a better way to make generic examples of these kinds of things. What we have is already probably better than English, but it would be nice if there was a pro-sumti that you could use to refer to a generic non-abstract sumti or a generic abstract sumti unambiguously and without having to define everything initially every time. (Other generic things would also be nice, this is just the example that pops up in this context.)

mu'o mi'e latros.

2010/5/5 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As for that way of defining tolcaudji, that's defined with a {nu}, which is
> pretty much what I was talking about. That makes perfect logical sense,
> whereas I don't honestly see {mi djica ko'a} for a concrete {ko'a} making as
> much sense as {mi djica tu'a ko'a} does.

But that's only because you have already decided that lo se djica has
to be a nu.

If "ko'a broda ko'e" makes sense for some brivla, it shouldn't make
any difference if that brivla is a gismu or a lujvo.

If the brivla "tolcaudji" makes perfect logical sense, then a gismu
with the same meaning should also make perfect logical sense.

> As for {nelci} et al., I guess it depends on what you really want. I know I
> wouldn't like it if {mi nelci ko'a} meant that {ko'a} had to be abstract,
> but then I do like it that {mi djica ko'a} means that {ko'a} has to be
> abstract.

That's fine, of course, we all have our personal likes and dislikes.
What I was objecting to is saying that an ordinary object as the x2 of
djica wouldn't make "logical sense". To me it's the restriction that
seems arbitrary and pointless.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.

-- 
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.