Re: [lojban] non-ka properties

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

2011/6/22 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>
> Stating a {ckaji} is just an indirect way to state the bridi obtained
> by applying the predicate to the x1.

Yes.

But just as "kau" makes sense outside of a subordinate bridi, it can
also make sense in these properties whose only purpose is to allow the
raising of one of the arguments.

> In a {cipra} you test how the predicate is true after substituting the x3.

But the subject of the test is the x3, not a predicate. You test the
x3 in order to determine how true the predicate is. And "how true?" is
what "xu" asks. Similarly you can test the x3 in order to dteremine
how many legs it has, or what kind of food it likes to eat, or what
species it belongs to, and so on, which correspond to non-xu
questions.

> In a {sisku} you search the set x3 for an element that makes the
> predicate true, which certainly involves one or more {cipra}.

I personally prefer to use a thing rather than a property in the x2 of
sisku, as in "mi sisku lo mi santa", "I'm looking for my umbrella."

But even if you prefer ka-sisku, you can still make sense of a ka-kau there:

   mi sisku lo ka ce'u zvati ma kau kei lo mi santa
   "I'm looking for the where-is-it-ness of my umbrella."

> Finally, a {simlu} is just the subjective version of {ckaji}.

Yes. For example:

- ro ta simlu lo ka no da tuple ce'u
- ienai .i ro ta simlu lo ka xo kau da tuple ce'u kei mi

 "All of those seem to have no legs."
 "Nah, each of them seems to me to have however many legs they do have."

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.