[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai

I'm trying to figure all the various discussions under this label out.  Let me summarize what I understand and then set me straight. 
1) Since 'xu dai' makes little sense literally, I take it it is an idiom of some sort, apparently meaning "What is the appropriate UI to use here, with reference to someone else?", I.e., "What would contextually defined so and so have used at this point in this sentence --suitably edited?"      So, 'mi xu dai klama?' asks you what someone (contextually you, again, but I supposed there is a way to assign it otherwise) would have said in the frame 'do ... klama.' (or maybe, in this case, 'la pycyn ... klama').  The correct answer is presumably something like 'zo ui' ( with an appropriate choice of UI).  The answer which seems to be given is 'ui', which clearly wrong in two ways: it is now an expression of the respondent's response to being asked the question (or something like that) and not someone's response to my coming and b) if it were to be that it would be deceptive since it would not actually express that emotion (in the usual case) but rather simulate it after it had gone away.
2). 'ko'a broda' is a necessary condition for 'ko'a me lo broda', but not a sufficient one.  'lo broda' refers to contextually defined brodas, not necessarily all brodas.  So, while something is a broda, it may not be one the conversation is concerned with, so not among lo broda (which, by the way, is not a set in the usual -- Cantorian -- sense, and preferably not in any other sense neither, though I can't break my habit of putting on an intervening entity).  The difference is, thus, quite different from that between 'walks' and 'is a walker', whichever of those differences you have in mind (most of these are covered in Lojban, if at all, by aspects or some such).

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 10, 2011, at 23:47, "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org> wrote:

> On 07/09/2011 03:36 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
>> mi cadzu = "I walk"
>> mi me lo cadzu = "I am a walker (pedestrian)"
> 
> No, I'm totally not buying this.  (Yes, I read the rest of the thread).  {mi cadzu} *does* mean "I am a walker".  If there is a sense in which "walk" is not "be a walker", you need to spell it out more specifically if you're claiming that that is the distinction engendered by {me}.
> 
> Stela Selkiku wrote:
> 
>> {.i ti'e so'o jbopre ba klama la .bastyn. .i xu do klama}
>> "I hear some Lojbanists are going to Boston.  Are you going?"
>> 
>> {.i mi na me lo klama .i mi klama la .bastyn. mu'i lo drata ku'i}
>> "I'm not one of the goers.  I'm going to Boston for another reason, though."
> 
> This works because of the specificity of {lo} (being completely general, one of its uses is as a specific gadri; go figure).  As you said, {lo klama} now refers to the contextually appropriate goer(s) we were just speaking of.  But the clear way to say that you're not among them would probably be {mi na cmima lo'i klama}, which of course relies on the same contextual appropriateness, but I think is clearer in the sense of saying that of this set of goers, you are not a member.
> 
> I never really liked {me lo} for this reason, and I'm finding myself thinking {me} should be left as vague as we can comfortably leave it.
> 
> ~mark
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 

-- 
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.