[lojban] deserves, la'e di'u

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

la nitcion cusku di'e

> >We considered "deserve" as a gismu, and decided that it was polysemous.  It
> >either is the perfective of earned, or it is innately-obliged to
> 
> So, jerna! Would not have thought of it, since I was thinking in 
> monetary terms, but I guess the expansion is licit. Jorge?

jerna: x1 (agent/person) earns/[deserves/merits] wages/salary/pay x2 
for work/service x3 (activity) 

Can x2 be "respect", "approval", "punishment", "attention", "laughs", 
"contempt", "abolishment", etc?
Can x1 be an object?
Can x3 be something x1 is or does but not intentionally?

(I don't understand how lojbab's "innately-obliged to" relates to
"deserves".)
 
> la'edi'u, OTOH, I don't see as having a snowball's chance, because 
> the point that it is compositional is so important. 

Why is it so important? How come {ri} is not compositional?
{ri} refers to the referent of its antecedent, much like
{la'e di'u}.

> (We need to 
> police the la'e/lu'e distinction.)

Yes, but it is the lu'e one that should be compositional.

> We can consider an exptal cmavo 
> equivalent to just la'edi'u,  but I would be prejudiced against it. 
> And I gotta say, I have not felt la'edi'u to be overlong, the way I 
> would feel lo'edu'u --- I think because la'edi'u is its own NP, and 
> lo'edu'u a determiner.

I often find it too long, though not always. It depends on the context.
Some people just use ti or ta instead of la'edi'u, so they sidestep the 
problem by overloading those cmavo.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com