From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 4:16:47 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra
Oh, and for the {viska} example that is being discussed but that I didn't mention: I think we "see" (viska) things and "observe" (zgana or vi'azga if you want to be specific) events. I think these should be separate gismu, and that it shouldn't make sense to {viska lo nu broda}.
mu'o mi'e latros.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps it is the static typer in me, but I would go so far as to say that it does not make sense for a place in a gismu to be able to be an abstraction or a concrete object. Objects filling a given predicate place have to fulfill certain basic, fundamental requirements to make semantic sense, and I think this is one of them. To me, even though I use "want" in this way in English, a {se djica} being a concrete object is like adding a function to a number.
--
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.