On 6 May 2010 20:34, Luke Bergen
<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
hmmm. So tijlan, you say that you see {lo plise} as being an implicit abstraction of the form {lo nu da plise}. But then you say that it doesn't make sense to say {mi nelci lo plise} because {lo plise} is not an abstraction. Pick a lane already =p
I'm not saying that {mi nelci lo plise} doesn't make sense. I'm saying:
1) the assumption that "an object and an event are different" does not reflect what "an object" actually is
and therefore
2) the assumption that some particular sumti should be *either* "an object" or "a state" does not make sense.
Everything we perceive as "an object" is an event on its fundamental level. "A hot apple" is an event of energy transfer between atoms/molecules, which are themselves events of smaller particles/waves. We normally call it "an object" because that's more natural and practical on the level of human perception. So it's of course ok to say {mi nelci lo plise} as a human _expression_. And there is no reason to exclude an event/abstract sumti for {nelci}'s x2 on that account. The official definition of {nelci} does allow "object/state" for its x2. But not for {djica}'s x2. Such a restriction seems pointless. Since {lo plise} and {lo nu da plise} are semantically identical, it seems even inappropriate to on one hand validate {mi djica lo nu da plise} and on the other hand invalidate {mi djica lo plise}.