Re: [lojban] Re: The x1 of fenki

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Theodore Reed <treed@surreality.us> wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 11:18 -0700, John E
> Clifford wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell
> > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > All of the major words used in the
> definition
> > > of fenki (crazy,
> > > insane, mad, frantic, frenzy) apply
> primarily
> > > to *people*, at least
> > > in the dictionaries I'm looking at.
> > > 
> > > Why, then, is the x1 of fenki an event?
> > > 
> > Either politeness or an entrenched notion of
> > psychology: people aren't crazy, only their
> > actions are.  Were the first place a person
> we
> > would need another place (probably the
> second)
> > for the behavior that justified the label. 
> For
> > that matter, all the words do also apply to
> > actions in English ("frenzy" is an
> action-type,
> > not a person at all, but both persons and
> actions
> > can be frenzied).  But it does make it hard
> > (perhaps intentionally?) to say a person is
> crazy
> > ({tu'a}? or a compound with {gau}?).
> 
> I'm not sure {gau} is what you want there.
> Perhaps {zu'e}?

 Maybe; but calling a certifiable nut a
volitional entity sorta misses the point, as does
talk of ends and the like for crazy actions.  He
certainly is the agent, he does do the deed,
though "brings about" packs in a lot of dubious
metaphysical freight that probably does not apply
(for much the same reason as talk of ends does not).