Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:56 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But the event of wearing a hat is abstract in Lojban terminology

I know, that's why I say Lojban terminology is so haywired sometimes.

> (and semantics, since it is a type or some such notion)

So when I say:

     mi viska lo nu do dasni lo mapku

is there some problem? Is that a different sense of "viska" from:

     mi viska lo mapku

>   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).

It's just as misleading/non-misleading as specifying that you want to
possess it, or that you need to possess it, instead of just saying
that you want it or need it. It is for the most part unnecessarily
overprecise.

>  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.

So you claim, but it doesn't sound right to me. It seems to me that
saying something about something is enough to put it in the domain of
discourse.

> 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.

The plan was never a coherent one, and the implementation was a total
disaster, since many people are now convinced that "mi djica ta" for
"I want that" is incorrect Lojban.

>  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.

If I tell you I want an apple, I have to tell you which apple or else
my claim is false, but if I tell you I want the having of apples, I
don't need to tell you which having of apples and my claim is still
true? That's not coherent.

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.