Re: [lojban] Re: xu dai

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:47 PM, 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}.

Apparently you didn't. The colloquial interpretation "I am a walker" may be able to be used for both bridi, however, the bridi do NOT mean the same thing.

mi me lo cadzu = "I/we am/are amongst those that are something which walks in aspect unspecified"

mi cadzu = "I/we walk/stride/pace on surface unspecified using limbs unspecified"

That {mi cadzu} can also be taken to mean "I am a walker" has no bearing on this. The English translation does not affect the Lojban meaning. Also, regardless of what the CLL says, I very much doubt that anyone will ever mean it that way, but will instead say something like, oh, {mi dzupre} (I am a walking-type-of-person), or possibly {mi mapti lo cadzu} (I correspond to "something which walks").

The relationship expressed in cadzu is that of an object, the surface it is at some point in time walking on, and the limbs it uses to do the walking.

The relationship expressed in {me lo cadzu} is that of an object, its identity as a member of a set, and the aspect by which it is included in that set.

These are two completely different relationships.

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 would've used {le klama}, as we were speaking of a specific group. Then again, this example was contrived as an illustration, so I probably wouldn't have said the bit about not being one of those goers at all.

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