Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're just being arbitrary at this point. I've explained quite
> thoroughly my side of the argument, and you seem to be ignoring my
> statements instead of addressing them.

I thought I did address them.

> For the record, I have
> explained that the reason it's wrong is because the meaning cannot
> change based on context.

I agree with that.

> When {djica} means "wants" in some contexts
> and "wants to have" in others, that is bad.

It always means "wants", in all contexts.

> This is why pilno/dunda is
> okay and djica/nitcu is not. We're not discussing universes of
> discourse, epistemology, unicorns, magical crabs, and whether we give
> an apple or give ownership of an apple.

When pc enters a discussion, unicorns always follow him. Don't blame
me for that.

> It comes down to the simple
> fact that a gismu cannot change meanings based on context, and you're
> implying that it can.

I don't think I am.

> Consistency is important. If {djica lo plise}
> means "Want to have an apple."

It doesn't. It means "want an apple".

>then what does {djica lo nu bajra}
> mean?

It means "want running".

> "Want to have a running."? You're bringing up a lot of pointless
> bullshit that really doesn't have anything to do with the actual
> problem here. You're constantly making comparisons to English and then
> justifying your malgli because it's valid in English.

I'm saying that "want an apple" is no different from "use an apple" or
"give an apple". They may all indirectly involve the having of the
apple, but the having is not a direct part of what you are saying.

And I would be happy to have this conversation in Lojban if you
prefer, so as not to let the English interfere. I'm not basing my view
on what English does or doesn't allow.

> You are not listening, you are not following logic or standard
> practice, and I am getting extremely frustrated.

Sorry about that.

I did misunderstand you on one point. I thought your argument went
like this: "the gi'uste says that the x2 of djica has to be an event,
therefore "mi djica lo plise" is wrong."

That's why I brought up "dunda", because the gi'uste also says that
"mi dunda lo plise" is wrong, and I don't suppose you agree with that.

But what you are actually saying is more like: "from my introspecting
into the real meaning of "djica", it is clear to me that only events
can be se djica, when we say we djica an object we are in fact kidding
ourselves, because what we really djica is to have that object". Am I
right that that is your argument?

What I am saying is that when we djica something, the having of it is
as important or as secondary as in the case of using something. Yes,
in both cases when we want/use an object, we also want/use the having
of it, but that doesn't mean that we don't want/use it itself.

Both djica and pilno allow events in x2. Do you agree?

 mi pilno lo nu mi se slabu lo tcadu kei lo nu tolcri lo dargu
 "I use my being familiar with the city to find my way around."

 mi djica lo nu mi se slabu lo tcadu kei lo nu tolcri lo dargu
 "I want to be familiar with the city to find my way around."

Do you agree that both of those are correct Lojban? Assuming you do,
why would it be different for:

  mi pilno lo fartci lo nu tolcri lo dargu
  "I use a compass to find my way around."

  mi djica lo fartci lo nu tolcri lo dargu
  "I want a compass to find my way around."

Yes, I could say instead that I use my having a compass, just as I use
my being familiar with the city, or that I want my having a compass,
just as I want my being familiar with the city, but that's not
required, I can just use/want the compass itself. And I'm not relying
on the English glosses to make this argument, just consider the Lojban
alone if you prefer. Of course you can always make it more precise by
saying that what you use/want is having the compass in your hand, or
somehow available to you. But if you don't specify that, you can still
use/want the compass to find your way around. And in many cases you
don't need to specify it.

> So, I am going to, as politely as possible, bow out of this
> conversation.
>
> I'm done.

OK. If I'm missing some part of your argument it is not because I'm
purposefully ignoring it.

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.