Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>       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. =\

And how about:

      mi pilno lo nu mi tolcau lo mapku kei lo nu mi dasni lo mapku
      mi pilno lo nu mi tolcau lo mapku kei lo nu mi dasni lo mapku
      mi pilno lo nu mi tolcau lo mapku kei lo nu mi dasni lo mapku

Is the first one wrong?

> {nitcu} and {djica} both have (or should have) an abstracted second
> place.

"abstracted" is another one of those abuses of terminology. There is
nothing abstract about wearing a hat. A number is abstract, a property
is abstract, a set is abstract, wearing a hat is not abstract. But I
understand what you mean, you say that you can only need or want
events, not objects. But then how come you can make use of objects?
Isn't it the possession of those objects that you make use of?

> 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.

I did express what to do with the hat I want: wear it.

I can do the same for the apple:

      mi djica lo plise lo nu renro fi lo stedu be do
      mi nitcu lo plise lo nu renro fi lo stedu be do
      mi pilno lo plise lo nu renro fi lo stedu be do

> {pilno} is a bad example, because there's nothing else implied.

How come? Don't you need to have something before you can use it? How
could you make use of it if you don't have it?

    mi djica lo nu tolcau lo plise kei lo nu renro py lo stedu be do
    mi nitcu lo nu tolcau lo plise kei lo nu renro py lo stedu be do
    mi pilno lo nu tolcau lo plise kei lo nu renro py lo stedu be do

> {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.

You don't have to assume anything. Of course if what you are going to
do with it is throw it, you will need to have it, but first you will
need for it to exist, and before that you will need for the tree to
grow, and before that you will need the Earth to exist so that the
tree can grow there, and before that you will also need the Sun to
exist, and we can go on. So yes, needing something probably means that
you need it to exist and that you need to have it. So what? You still
need it.

>> 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.

I'm not talking about ownership. I'm talking about having it. Do you say:

     mi dunda lo nu tolcau lo plise kei do

or do you say:

    mi dunda lo plise do

Do I just transfer the apple to you, or do I transfer the having of
the apple to you?

If what you want is the having of the apple, should I just transfer
the apple, or should I transfer the having of the apple?

The gi'uste says that "mi dunda lo plise do" is wrong or ambiguous. Do
you agree?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.