Re: [lojban] non-ka properties

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

2011/6/20 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>
> From the gimste, I would describe a se cipra as a pure ka, non-kau,
> property.

I consider a ka-kau a pure property, just not fully specified.

> That is, in a cipra the te cipra is tested for whether it
> satisfies a certain predicate, specified by the se cipra (or for how well
> does it satisfy that predicate, in a fuzzy approach).

The wording may suggest that, but it seems to be unnecessarily restrictive.

Compare:

pajni lo du'u xu kau ta glare
"... determines whether that is hot."

cipra lo ka xu kau ce'u glare kei ta
"... tests the hotness of that."

pajni lo du'u lo ma kau jimte ti
"... determines what the limits of this are."

cipra lo ka ma kau jimte ce'u kei ti
"... tests the 'what are its limits'-ness of this."
"... tests the limits of this."

> Reading a ka-makau makes me wonder if the cipra is being interpreted
> as some kind of measure of what stands in the place indicated by {makau}.

A determination or assessment, yes, not necessarily a measurement.

> ni'o
> A second issue, which has been in my mind since I first considered
> the kau approach: How does {ka broda} compare to {ka xukau broda}?
>
> (My current understanding still is that they mean the same)

In the cipra case, or in general?

If you think "cipra" has a "xukau" embedded as part of the definition
of its x2, then it may be equivalent to use "lo ka" or "lo ka xu kau"
in that place, but in general they are not equivalent.

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.