Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> maikxlx wrote:
>> 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.
>
I agree that this is a neat solution, and I also agree that it clashes
with {kau}'s use in bridi abstractions.  Wouldn't it make the most
sense to simply understand x1 as the relevant sumti? In other words

(1) {x1 ka'e [selbri] x2 x3 [...]} would be a transformation of:

(2) {x1 kakne lo nu ce'u [selbri] x2 x3 [...]}, and vice versa.

(Note that in (1),  {teka'e} could tag the {te kakne} of (2) if
desired.)  There is no need for {kau} in {ka'e} bridi because you can
always use {ce'u} in the event abstraction expressed by the x2 of
{kakne} to get anything you want.  {ka'e} is just there as short hand
to more conveniently express (2), which is probably the most common
{kakne} scenario.


>> 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?
>
I do not necessarily* want to try to pry {ka'e} from {kakne} at this
point.  It's a rather frequently used cmavo and I suspect "reforming"
it would be futile, though xorxes thinks otherwise.  What I think
Lojban unequivocally needs are two new modal operators with a grammar
similar to CAhA but sensitive to scope.  Lojban also needs a brivla
for modal necessity to complement {cumki}, which we probably already
have as {zilsa'u} or possibly {ziln'i'i}, I don't care which.

*Notice the modal operator usage in natural language.


> 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.
>
I see no evidence of life over there.  My request to join their
mailing list was never responded to.

> lojbab
>
mu'o mi'e .maik.

-- 
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.