[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 30, 2010, at 19:07, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
But the event of wearing a hat is abstract in Lojban terminology (and semantics, since it is a type or some such notion) and I suppose that this is what he means. He is wrong, of course in insisting that these relations require such terms in their second place. I don't get your point: how do you make use of the possession of an object (unless this is a very misleading way of saying you make use of the object).
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.
This last part seem pretty pointless to me, since it is off on something that is not the problem, about whether we have given a purpose for giving something or whether we have given possession along with -- or instead of (possible?) -- the apple and so on. The problem, to come back to it is, is whether the referent of a term is in the domain of discourse or not, In a lot of cases involving terms that construct out of human intentions and emotions and cognitions, the answer is that typically the term we put in that place is not, in fact referring to something in the domain of discourse, and should be marked accordingly. To distinguish it from the occasional cases where it does so refer, if for nothing else. Lojban decided a long time ago to deal with this problem not by marking certain places as being peculiar with respect to some rules but by using certain term types that disallowed raising. We have fairly frequently failed to follow those plans
with various weird results, but the plan is still a good one. People who say 'mi djicu lo plise' should be prepared to answer, "Which one?" and, if they cannot in principle even do that, then their claim is false.
--
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.