Re: di'e preti zo nu

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx]

la kolin spuda la djer di'e

>I think your point may be interpretable in terms of Lojban grammar by
>assuming a further subcategorisation - suppose that some tersumti
>subcategorise not just for kamsucta, but for kamfasnu (event) or
>kamselckaji (property). You may be right, and nitcu is no doubt a word
>where this question is significant.

I think most tersumti that subcategorise for kamsucta do also
further subcategorise for kamfasnu/kamselckaji. For example
zmadu definitely requires a selckaji in x3, and no fasnu will do.
This is true of most places that require properties.

>If this is correct, your argument is that nitcu requires a property and
>not a predication or state-of-affairs. This is a possible position to
>take, but it does not seem to me to be useful, or supported by the
>arguments and usage of those who have considered or used nitcu in the
>past. What is clear is that it cannot be supported by the choice of form
>used in the English gloss.

I hope nitcu doesn't go the same way sisku went for this very same
reason I think. The "solution" that turned "x1 looks for x2" into "x1 looks
for something with property x2" is really no solution, because we could
always construct a lujvo meaning "x1 looks for object x2" and the same
difficulty surfaces again. In fact, as far as I can tell sisku is still
being
used with its original meaning, which is the more useful one.
Changing {nitcu} to "x1 needs something with property x2" I think would
be a mistake.

co'o mi'e xorxes