Re: di'e preti zo nu

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>]

SwiftRain:
>pe'i the appropriate something else, according to my own lojbanic
>intuition & if i understand it correctly the reference grammar as well
>(chapter 16 section 8), is {lo nu}:
>
>mi nitcu le tanxe
> - i need the box (& we both know what i mean by "box")
>mi nitcu lo tanxe
> - there is a da such that i need da & da is a box
>mi nitcu lo nu mi ponse lo tanxe
> - i need an event of my possessing a box

That is indeed right, but in my opinion it is not a general solution.
In this case, for some reason {nitcu} can mean both "x1 needs object x2"
and "x1 needs that event x2 happen". I never understood why for some
predicates this sort of thing is ok and for others it is called sumti
raising.

But there are other predicates for which it's not so easy to change
to an event. For example, consider a relationship
"x1searches/looks for object x2". Unfortunately {sisku} is not defined
this way, so let's make a lujvo for it, for example {zvafaktoi} = "x1 tries
to find out the whereabouts of x2".

Now, again we have the three possibilities:

{mi zvafaktoi le tanxe} = "I'm looking for the box"
For example, the box where I keep some old photographs, and if
you don't understand that by {le tanxe} I mean that particular box then
you don't really understand what I'm saying.

{mi zvafaktoi lo tanxe} = there is a da such that I look for da & da is a
box.
Here again it may be that I'm looking for that box with the photographs,
but all I'm saying is that there is some box such that I look for it. You
may
not know anything about that particular box, and you don't need to in order
to understand what I mean

?{mi zvafaktoi lo'e tanxe} = "I'm looking for a box", for example because
I need one to keep some more pictures. But I'm not claiming that there
is somewhere some actual box and that box is the one I'm looking for.
There is no such object that I can say is actually the goal of my search.

Now, in this case to use the event trick I have to change the predicate,
because "I'm looking for an event of my possessing a box" doesn't
sound quite right, and much less "I'm trying to find out the whereabouts
of an event of my possessing a box". To me this shows that the {nitcu}
example is based on the particularity that "need" works for objects as
well as for events, but it is not a general solution.

Now, suppose that I see something that might be what I'm looking for.
I need a predicate that means "x1 appears to be x2", {du'omlu} is a good
lujvo for that. Then I say:

{ta du'omlu le tanxe} = "That appears to be the box" i.e. that object that
I'm pointing at appears to be the box that we know contains the pictures.

{ta du'omlu lo tanxe} = there is a da such that that thing there appears
                                         to be it & da is a box.
This is a very unlikely thing to say, but it may come up for example in the
same case where I had told you {mi zvafaktoi lo tanxe}, that there was
some actual box I was looking for, and now I tell you that there is some
actual box such that the object I'm pointing at appears to be it.

But what about the more common "That appears to be a box"? I would
say {ta du'omlu lo'e tanxe}. I'm not claiming the existence of any actual
box such that that object there appears to be it. Again changing to an
event is not really satisfactory. I suppose "that appears to be an event
of something being a box" does make sense, but the referent of {ta}
has shifted from the object to the event.

>pe'i "mi nitcu lo'e tanxe" would mean "one of the properties of the
>typical box is to be needed by me," that is, it would seem to assert
>that i need a great number of boxes, probably most of them.

I don't think it is clear that {lo'e tanxe} is supposed to refer to all
actual
boxes that are typical boxes (ro lo fadni be le ka tanxe) or to at least one
actual typical box (lo fadni be le ka tanxe). I would much prefer it to not
refer to any actual box but rather to be used in the cases where we need
as an argument not some actual object but an ideal. I just don't think
it has to be the "typical", but unfortunately that's how it was glossed.

co'o mi'e xorxes