{dasni fi lo'e kosta} would be like {kostydasni}, defined as
"x1 wears x2 as a coat", and {dasni fi lo'e skaci} would be
like {skacydasni} defined as "x1 wears x2 as a skirt".
{dasni fi zi'o} is simply "x1 wears x2". In that sense I meant
them to be alike. Of course each has a different meaning.
I'm sorry; the way you brought that up made it seem like you had a special point here rather than a (largely irrelevant) truism. Notice that {dasni vi le birka janco} behaves just like {biryjancydasni} define as "x1 wears x2 on his shoulders as x3". I don't see what that has to do with {lo'e}, since it works as well with any sumti place.
<<
How does Spanish enter here? Spanish works almost like
English in this case, although no article is normally used
for "coat": "Usa la frazada como saco". "Usa la frazada
como un saco" is also possible, with a slight difference in
sense. In the first case, the sense is more that the blanket
is playing the role of a coat, fulfilling its function. In
the second case the sense is that he wears it the way he
would wear a coat. Very slight difference. But in no case
is there a coat claimed to be a part of the action.>>
Sorry again. Iassumed that the Spanish translation of the cmavo list would have {lo'e} described as an archetype of rather than a typical member of . Glad to hear that I am wrong (if that is the mesage you are sending). The first Spanish case here is interesting because it precisely does not suggest that there is a coat involved and that may be what colors your view of the matter -- though throwing in an archetype rather than a coat hardly helps. The second is, of course, just like the English and my recommended Lojban and generates one or the other of the same products, though I don't know which one. Your remarks suggests the intentional one: a possible coat, even if not one in this world.
<<
I never meant my rhetoric to rely on finding exactly one.
Finding at least one is my problem. I don't think there is
any coat at all to be found such that he wears the blanket
as it.
>>
But you keep referring to "it" which says both that there is one thing there and, from other remarks, only one. But I now understand your remarks to be intentional, so, no problem. Except, of course, that in the intentional frame there is such a coat.
<<
>or else the whole is
>an intentional context out of which the referent is raised (and should be
>labelled {tu'a} or otherwise marked), in which case, what is involved is
>still a coat but not necessarily one in this world -- a possible coat, more
>or less.
I guess that approaches what I mean. That's why I use {lo'e}.
>>
Non sequitur. What does {lo'e}, in either sense, have to do with intentional contexts? {lo'e broda} for every broda that is proper (as {kosta} surely is) is in this world and so quantifiable to a {da}.
<<
But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because
no coat is involved in the relationship.
>>
You do keep saying that, but I still don't see what the evidence is for the claim (other than that you don't know how to find one of those involved -- which was not claimed).
<<
can I say for example: {le nu mi punji
le cukta le jubme cu cpana le jubme}: "My putting the book on
the table is on the table"?
>>
Well, I expect that there are subtleties galore here, but this seems at least partly right. I think the event is probably in you (maybe just your hand) and the book and the table top when they are reasonably continuous. This (poke-in-the-eye) kind of case does seem to happen primarily where all the components are together. Of course, it also happens in such-and-such a room, in such-and-such a town (and many subdivisions thereof) and so on (the address every kid of a certain age puts on a letter to some friend). Of course, the whole is complicated by the fact that events exist in Lojban even when (and where?) they don't occur. Enchanting, as I said.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.