On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:You can ask lojbab, who wrote the definition. I'm pretty sure he did
>
> I don't agree. When I see a definition like "x1 understands/comprehends
> fact/truth x2 (du'u) about subject x3; x1 understands (fi) x3, I take it to
> mean that
> {zo'e jimpe zo'e zo'e} means "x1 understands/comprehends fact/truth x2
> (du'u) about subject x3"
> {zo'e jimpe fi zo'e} means " "x1 understands (fi) x3"
not intend for "zo'e jimpe zo'e zo'e" to mean anything different to
"zo'e jimpe fi zo'e".
See: http://jbotcan.org/docs/cll/c7/s7.html for how "zo'e" is supposed to work.
But "facki fi da" does not mean "tolcri da".
> I don't limit this to just {jimpe}:
> facki "x1 discovers/finds out x2 (du'u) about subject/object x3; x1 finds
> (fi) x3 (object)"
> {zo'e facki zo'e zo'e} "x1 discovers/finds out x2 (du'u) about
> subject/object x3"
> {zo'e facki fi zo'e} "x1 finds (fi) x3 (object)"
What's the differnce between responding and being responsive?
> frati "x1 reacts/responds/answers with action x2 to stimulus x3 under
> conditions x4; x1 is responsive"
> {zo'e frati zo'e zo'e zo'e} "x1 reacts/responds/answers with action x2 to
> stimulus x3 under conditions x4"
> {zo'e frati} "x1 is responsive"
What's the difference between floating and being buoyant? Are you
> fulta "x1 (passive) floats on/in fluid (gas/liquid) x2; x1 is buoyant"
> {zo'e fulta zo'e} "x1 (passive) floats on/in fluid (gas/liquid) x2"
> {zo'e fulta} "x1 is buoyant"
thinking of a ca'a/ka'e distinction? It is not related to the presence
or absence of an explicit x2.
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.