[lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>]

> Other examples of potentially raising selbri are djuno, cilre, facki,
> jimpe, and all the others with a place structure involving "fact x2
> about x3". The argument x3 can be raised from the subordinate clause
> in x2. This rarely happens however, because the raised argument is
> inconveniently located.

That's not what I'm talking about. That's a feature of the language.
When x1 of a subordinate clause is elided, it's assumed to be the x1
of the main bridi. That's not what we're discussing, so forgive me if
I've applied the wrong terminology.

>     Nobody really says:
>
>     mi facki lo du'u sralo kei ko'a
>     "I found out being Australian about her."
>     "I found out about her being Australian."

We really should, though. >_>

> Instead of:
>
>     mi facki lo du'u ko'a sralo
>     "I found out that she is Australian."
>
> Raising is just not convenient in Lojban for these propositional
> attitude selbri.
>
> (Also, it is not clear why some of them have a raising place and
> others, like for example "birti", don't. Either all should have it or
> none, but Lojban place structures are so full of exceptions. But
> that's just an aside.)

I think that's an error. I've already semi-addressed it to the BPFK.

> > Wanting an apple for the purpose of eating
> > it is still sumti raising, because it's adding an implied concept of -
> > having-. That's what sumti raising is. =/
>
> It is, in a sense, sumti raising, but not for the reason you give.
> Consider these:
>
>       mi pilno lo mapku lo nu dasni
>       mi nitcu lo mapku lo nu dasni
>       mi djica lo mapku lo nu dasni

Two of these are wrong. =\

> "pilno", "nitcu" and "djica" all have basically the same place
> structure. (There may be others like them, for example "sazri.)
>
> Now, we could say that in those three examples, there is a double
> sumti raising, since the x1 of dasni is raised to the x1 of the main
> clause, and the x2 of dasni is raised to the x2 of the main clause.
> But there is nothing wrong with any of them! sumti raising is a normal
> part of the Lojban grammar. Some selbri just happen to have argument
> places for raised arguments. So what? Why this witch-hunt about the x2
> of djica? Why doesn't anyone ever worry about the tens or maybe
> hundreds of other sumti raising places that the gismu list provides?

{nitcu} and {djica} both have (or should have) an abstracted second
place. What about the apple do you want/need? You've expressed reason
and the target, but not what to do with it. -THAT- is my problem here.
{pilno} is a bad example, because there's nothing else implied.
{nitcu} ... do you need possession? Do you need to throw it? The
problem is that the definition does not include -having-. So do we
assume when it's an object it's having, and something else in all
other cases? That's not what Lojban is about. That's just plain bad
practice.

> And you didn't say what you think about "dunda lo plise". Do you
> object to that too, or do you wisely ignore the gismu list comment in
> that case?

{dunda} implies no transfer of ownership. It's a simple physical
transfer of an object from one person to another. It's like borrowing
a pen. It -could- mean a transfer of ownership, but no such sense is
implied by the word in of itself.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.