[lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

[Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com>]

> > x3 is the reason
> > itself, not what the action is of the thing in question. If yours is
> > the correct version, then how do I express "I want to run in order to
> > be healthy."?

>  mi djica lo nu mi bajra kei lo nu mi kanro

So now we have twenty different values of 'want'.
What happens when we omit those x1s?
{mi djica lo nu bajra kei lo nu kanro}, which would be standard
practice now.
This would end up being parallel in meaning to {mi djica fi lo nu lo
nu mi bajra kei ku kanro}
...or {mi djica fi lo nu mi kanro lo nu mi bajra}, for that matter...

So now we have to explicitly mention the x1 in order for this not to
happen?


You're saying that the x2 is raised to the x2 of the x3's clause in
djica (for {mi djica lo plise lo nu citka}. So... now instead of
desirer, desired (nu), reason (probably some kind of abstraction), we
have "desirer, desired (any), reason (abstraction, x1 is the x1 of
main bridi, x2 is x2 of main bridi" if we're making a consistent rule
here.

Is this correct?

If not, please correct me.

> I hope you don't think I ever said you cannot put an event in x2. Sure
> you can. Both events and objects are fine there. Just as in the x2 of
> pilno, or the x2 of viska, or any of the many many other places that
> accept both objects and events.

Yes... but... ugh... no.

-- 
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.