Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 31 October 2010 12:47, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the record, I have
> explained that the reason it's wrong is because the meaning cannot
> change based on context. When {djica} means "wants" in some contexts
> and "wants to have" in others, that is bad.

I see no significant change in the predicate's meaning. In both {mi
djica lo plise} and {mi djica lo nu ponse lo plise}, the meaning of
{dunda} remains "want something". Both {lo plise} and {lo nu ponse lo
plise} are something.


> Consistency is important. If {djica lo plise}
> means "Want to have an apple." then what does {djica lo nu bajra}
> mean?

{djica lo plise} doesn't mean "want to have an apple"; it means "want
<an apple>". "to have" is not a prescriptive element.

{djica lo nu bajra} means "want <to run>". The definition of {djica}
is identical to the other example.

Both {lo plise} and {lo nu bajra} are a valid djica2, in my opinion.

-- 
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.