[lojban] Re: Re[2]: tanru

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> pc:
> > But, of course, {mutce} doesn't have two
> opposite
> > senses. 
> 
> Okey, just a very exotic sense.

Probably true.
 
> > Or, of course, comes from "very" (and the
> like in
> > other languages) which can extend in any
> > direction towards an extreme.
> 
> But "very" is always unidirectional. "Very hot"
> can only mean hotter
> than normal. {mutce lo ka glare} can in theory
> mean "very hot" or
> "barely hot". In practice, only "very hot".

But, even if fixed for a given word, it can go in
either direction, depending on the word.  I
suppose that {mutce} generalizes on this a bit.
 
> > As noted, I have some trouble thinking of
> eating
> > as a property and most especially as a
> proprty
> > that of itself can be comparative or
> superlative,
> > etc.: "He very eats" -- even "He extremely
> eats"
> > -- doesn't compute out to anything in any
> literal
> > way and as an idion makes most sense as being
> > about amounts of eating (in one reading or
> > another).
> 
> Those would be the most likely ones, yes:
> 
>   mutce lo ka ce'u citka lo klani be li xo kau
>   Extreme in how much they eat.
> 
>   mutce lo ka ce'u xo kau roi citka
>   Extreme in how often they eat.
> 
> {mutce lo ka [ce'u] citka} is not explicit
> about what exactly is being graded.


The point is just that it is graded, not merely a
property.
 
> > > If you put {le nu citka} in x2, how do you
> know
> > > what role the x1
> > > of mutce/dukse plays in that event?
> > 
> > Presumably as subject, just as it would with
> {ka}
> > -- or {ni} for that matter.
> 
> But you can't use {ce'u} with {nu}.

So you have said before, but I still don't see 1)
that this is in CLL, which calls {ce'u} a focus
in an *abstraction*, not merely a property
abstraction and 2) if it is somehwere forbidden
with nu} why this is not just a very careless
mistake, to be corrected in the current process. 
 There is surely as much a function from objects
to events as there is from objects to properties
and, like the case with properties, these
functions are the natural things to use for the
general notion.
 
> > And we have said nothing about the kinds of
> > extreme -- in eating say -- that *don't* deal
> > with quantities: eating chocolate-covered
> > grasshoppers, for example, or raw mokey
> brains
> > scooped out of the skull which is sliced off
> at
> > the table.  those would seem to call for
> > 9indirect questions in the second what "is
> > extreme in what he eats" or even, "in that he
> > eats ..." (both of which look to be moving
> toward
> > events or at least propositions. 
> 
>   mutce lo ka ce'u citka lo mo kau
>   Extreme in what kind of thing they eat.
> 
> > Maybe when BPFK
> > gerts around to vocabulary word like this
> need a
> > second look.
> 
> Removing the "in direction" place would
> certainly bring it more in line 
> with usage.
> 
Yes, and dropping the requirement for a {ka}
abstraction would bring it more in line with what
it wants to say (I gather).