[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like
maikxlx wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
maikxlx wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
If I make a ka'e capability claim involving all the places of klama, then
the claim applies just as much to the place gone to as to the go-er. If
I
can go to a place (from somewhere else by some route), then that place
can
be gone to by me, and likewise, if I cannot, then it cannot.
I have to disagree; I think that {kakne} capability manifests itself
differently among each of the bridi places. Specifically the capacity
of a goer to be a goer is expressible as something like {lo ka ka'e
klama}, while the capacity to be a place gone-to is {lo ka ka'e se
klama} -- assuming that {ka'e} carries from {kakne}, which is
something that xorxes disputes.
But of course the capability of lo klama to be such is the capability to
klama x2 x3 x4 x5, and its capability is dependent on the values of x2, x3,
x4, and x5, and correspondingly, the claim seems evident that this is
strongly associated with the capability of that x2 to se klama x1 x3 x4 x5,
and with the capability of x3 to te klama x2 x1 x4 x5, etc.
I agree that there is a family of co-dependent capabilities.
Nora and I were discussing this topic yesterday, and she posed that the
explicit way of referring to just one of these capabilies would be to
mark the relevant sumti with kau, with the unmarked form technically
being nonspecific as to which of the co-dependent capabilities is being
focused on.
Thus the typical interpretation of
lo nanla cu ka'e limna
is
lo nanla kau cu ka'e limna
I like this, but it presents a possible overloading of kau if there are
more than one reason to mark a bridi, such as
mi djuno ledu'u la nanla kau ka'e djuno makau
intending
I know where the boy is capable of swimming.
The rub
in the context of the larger discussion is the exact relationship of
this family to {cumki}. Supposing for a moment that it could be
purified of obvious malrarna, I would still say that {kakne} makes a
stronger claim than {cumki} does, because the former imputes to an
individual in the actual world an inherent property, whereas the
latter merely claims that the overall proposition is possible, or to
put it equivalently, that it is true in some possible state of
affairs.
There is in my mind some difference in meaning between cumki and kakne,
and that may be it, but I will remain uncommitted.
> What we want out of {ka'e} is only the latter, and if it
can't guarantee that, then something else is needed IMHO.
You are saying that we WANT a cumki rather than a kakne meaning for use
in the contrast between the various CAhAs?
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
I think Plan B was whimsical sketch on purpose, intending to make fun of
the perfectionists who were perpetually proposing something new and
different to reform the language.
I don't know. It was written in a pretty deadpan tone.
Jeff is that way.
My insight, such as it was, is that for a language to be a LANGUAGE, the
significance of a stable and active user base is all important. A
theoretical construct that no one (or only the inventor) uses might be more
logical, but it would not really be a language. I did not win friends in
the conlang community with this attitude %^)
Well, even as a "perfectionist" that might disagree with you, I'd say
you must have done something right, because the fact of the matter is
that Lojban is the only game in town.
TLI Loglan still exists with a very small rump community (some of whom
are also Lojbanists). I am not sure WHY someone would use TLI Loglan
instead of Lojban, but they do.
lojbab
--
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.