RE: [lojban] cenba

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>]

Jorge:
> 1-  le mi creka cu cenba fo le nu lumci py
>     My shirt changed in the wash (e.g. it shrunk).
> 
> 2-  ?le creka cu cenba fo le nu le mi se klama cu cenba
>     My shirt varies as my destination varies.
> 
> Do we really approve of this type of ambiguity? 

Certainly not!

> In the first case,
> {le mi creka} refers to a particular object, which changes in some
> property. In 2, what seems to change is what the referent of
> {le mi creka} is. In 1, {cenba} describes a relationship between
> an object and an event. In 2, unless I'm misunderstunding something,
> it would be a relationship between the words, it says that
> the words of x1 change referent in consonance with the change of
> referent of the words of x2. Is that acceptable?

Not really. I think 2 should be

 2'-  le nu ms ksu creka cu cenba ....

or

 2''  lo'i creka cu cenba .... 

"What is my shirt depends on what is my destination"

--And.