Re: [lojban] skudji

["Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>]

>From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:26:53 GMT
>
>la deiv cusku di'e
>
>>tolnutsku (to'e + snuti + cusku)
>>
>>x1 (agent) intentionally expresses/means to say x2 (sedu'u/text/lu'e
>>concept) for audience x3 via expressive medium x4
>
>But "intentionally say" is not the same thing as "intend to say".
>When someone says "I meant to say X" they are accepting that they
>may not actually have said X, but if they say "I intentionally
>said X" then they are claiming to have said X. So the lujvo
>should not be "intensional-say" but "say-intend". A kind of
>intending, not a kind of saying.
>
>Now I would prefer {skudji} over {skuseltolsnuti} just on the
>grounds of ease of use, but even the meaning of {skuseltolsnuti}
>is not quite right.
>
>{se tolsnuti} would be "x1 does x2 intentionally/on purpose".
>
>But we need "x1 intends that x2 happen". Not the same thing.

Unless I'm missing the meaning (!) intended (!), I can't see how "vouloir
dire" can be anything other than {[se] smuni}, or maybe some tanru/lujvo of
smuni. After all, saying "'soldji' means 'to want to be a soldier'" is
nothing more or less than 

zo soldji cu se smuni le si'o djica le nu solji kei ku kei ku lo'e lojbo
cusku.

'soldji' has-as-its-meaning the-idea-of: want the-event-of: be-a-soldier
(CLOSE, CLOSE) as-accepted-by: the-typical lojban expresser.

perhaps with a {ca'e} or some such explanatory UI, depending on the
context. Note the population of the x3 place of {smuni}, included for
completeness.

~mark