RE: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod:
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> > > xod:
> > > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > > Xod:
> > > > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > > > > >    i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, I don't think so. Does "li'i da -rain" [bugger. tip of the
> > > > > > > tongue. carmi?cevni? no] (= experience of it raining) make sense. I
> > > > > > > think it does. So I think "experience of having legs" is NOT
> > > > > > > "li'i ce'u se tuple" but rather "li'i le se NO'AU se tuple", where
> > > > > > > NO'AU = next outer phrase (regardless of whether it is a bridi) = a
> > > > > > > sibling of NO'A.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > li'i ce'u klama
> > > > > > experience of going
> > > > > >
> > > > > > li'i ce'u xelklama
> > > > > > experience of being a vehicle
> > > > > >
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what sort of thing is ce'u in this construction. It seems nothing
> > > > > more than a variable bound to x2 of li'i. That's not at all what ce'u
> > > > > in ka or si'o or du'u is. So I'd change your examples to:
> > > >
> > > > What is the big difference you see between si'o2 and li'i2?
> > >
> > > I don't really understand what you're asking. But at any rate, it is
> > > clear that a ce'u in si'o is not bound to x2 of si'o (le se si'o).
> >
> > I see what you're saying. But the li'i needs a focus. Are you suggesting
> > we bust out yet another cmavo rather than use ce'u in li'i?
>
> The li'i doesn't always need a focus: {le li'i da carvi kei be mi} =
> my experience of it raining.



How can you experience it raining? Are you experiencing {li'i ce'u carvi},
being rain? Or being rained upon (li'i carvi ce'u}? Or being a something
cloud-like, that generates rain {li'i carvi fi ce'u}? Pissing out of a
window is part of the carvi experience just as much as getting dripped on
from an air conditioner. Without ce'u, only flimsy contextual clues
provide the data.


 So "my experience of me belching" should
> be {le li'i mi kafke kei be mi}, not {le li'i ce'u kafke kei be mi}.

Next you'll declare the second mi redundant and try to get away with {li'i
mi kafke}. But the fact that there is a li'i2 indicates to me that the
li'i bridi refers to an abstraction, like a ka or such, which relates
ideas to each other, and only later gets fixed to refer to some particular
person.





-----
"We should destroy the Muslims' homes while leaving the Christians'
homes alone."  -- Rehavam Zeevi, Israeli Tourism Minister