Re: [lojban] Re: kargu mleca

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la adam cusku di'e

> This seems like "abstraction raising" to me. "ko'a sisku lo ka broda
> kei le klesi" means that ko'a is looking for something which has the
> property of broda-ness in the set, which should be able to be
> expressed by "ko'a sisku lo ckaji be lo ka broda kei le klesi" which
> is just the same as "ko'a sisku lo broda le klesi".

The problem the gi'uste wants to avoid is that in {ko'a sisku
lo broda}, the quantifier of {lo broda} is at the bridi level, and
this is not what we want to claim in some cases. I don't want to
claim that there is something less expensive, such that I am looking
for that very something. But turning the x2 of sisku into a property
is a crazy way of solving this problem.

Let's compare three predicates where this issue comes up: sisku,
djica and nitcu. The gi'uste handles each of them differently:
sisku gets the object turned into a property, djica gets an event,
and nitcu apparently comes out unscathed.

So, even when there is no quantification problem, we are supposed
to say weird stuff like:

   mi nitcu do i mi djica le nu do co'e i mi sisku le ka du do
   I need you. I want you. I'm looking for you.

instead of the expected {mi nitcu do i mi djica do i mi sisku do}.

Much better in my opinion is to leave them with their original
meaning and then say:

   mi nitcu lo'e kargu mleca
   I need something less expensive.

   mi djica lo'e kargu mleca
   I want something less expensive.

   mi sisku lo'e kargu mleca
   I'm looking for something less expensive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp