Re: Abstraction paper, draft 1.0

[nsn (Nick Nicholas)]

>The bridi may be a simple selbri, or it may have associated sumti, as
>here.  It is important to beware of eliding "kei" improperly, as
>many of the common uses of abstraction selbri involve following them
>with words that may appear to be part of the abstraction if "kei"
>has been elided.

I'd say: that would appear to be part of the abstraction were "kei" to have
been elided.

>2.7)	le nu mi sipna
>	the event-of my breathing

vasxu *smile*. i.a'ocaizo'o do na sipna ca'o piro.ue ledo za'i jmive

>in Section 2.  Instead, a convention (the motivation for which is
>explained elsewhere) is employed when an explicit sumti is wanted.
>A hitherto unused pro-sumti (of selma'o KOhA) is chosen from the series
>"da", "de", "di".  If all three of these are already in use, subscripting

Do you ever actually explain this motivation?


>The "blueness of the picture" discussed in Section 5 refers to the measurable
>amount of blue pigment (or other source of blueness), not to the purity,
>actuality, or probability that blueness is present.  That abstraction is
>expressed in Lojban using "jei", which is closely related semantically
>to "ni".  In the simplest cases, "le jei" produces not a number but a
>truth value:

I'd reword this: the actuality should be the emphasis of {jei}, but 'actuality'
is a somewhat obscure word to be used here, and doesn't draw attention to 
itself. Perhaps "the truth of the claim that"?

>7.2)	mi djuno le nu la frank. cu bebna [kei]
>	I know the event of Frank being a fool.
>
>Not quite right.  Events are things which happen; Example 7.2 is
>possible, but would mean something like "I know something about Frank's
>foolishness."  It is in fact an example of "sumti raising" (see Section

Not quite clear to a non-initiate; I think you need to dwell on this a bit
further. In particular, point out that actual physical events cannot be
contained within one's mind, and that 7.2 is close to claiming Frank is
running around inside your skull, unless it's a sumti-raising. After all,
the English gloss you give is perfectly plausible English.

>To express indirect questions in Lojban, we use a "le du'u" abstraction,
>but rather than using a question word like "who" ("ma" in Lojban), 

Explain why not, ie that it would give a direct question.

>8.3)	mi djuno le du'u
>		dakau pu klama le zarci
>	I know the predication-of
>		X [indirect question] [past] going to the store.

This isn't kosher, I know, but for the non-initiates, do add the comment that
predication is akin to sentence.

>It is actually not necessary to use "kau" to express sumti indirect questions;
>there is generally a paraphrase of the type:

Do note, though, that the x3 of djuno is in effect a sumti-raiser out of x2, 
and using {kau} is more precise.

I'd gloss {tu'a le vorme} as "some action to do with the door", making it's
LAhE nature explicit.

You use the new rafsi for {ni} and {kalri}, but the old rafsi for {ka} (should
be kam, not kaz).

Didn't we get around to giving rafsi to all the abstractors without them
in the rafsi overhaul? And shouldn't we? I'm sure there are enough to go
around.

I'm quite happy with the paper. Congratulations, John!

Momenton senpretende paseman mi retenis kaj # [Victor Sadler, _Memkritiko_ 90]
   kultis kvazaux                           &  (NICK NICHOLAS. Melbourne.
      senhorlogxan elizeon                  #   Australia. IRC: nicxjo.
         (Dume:                             &   nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au .)