Re: [lojban] ka'e/kakne & mapti/sarxe

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

2012/2/21 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
> On 21 February 2012 12:46, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I will support
>>> the interpretation from xorxes.
>>
>> I don't see our interpretations as being different.
>
> But there is a difference here, xorxes. Remember the sentence
>  {mi kakne lo nu do citka},

(which is equivalent to "mi kakne lo nu se citka do")

> which you would likely interpret as
>  {mi kakne lo nu do citka mi},
> while Pierre, who believes that kakne1 need not be a part of the clause
> in kakne2, even elliptically, would read it as what you write as
>  {mi kakne lo nu do citka do'e mi}.

(You meant remod, not Pierre, right?) I can get that reading too.
That's as general (and vague) as it can get.

> Personally, I think that Pierre's reading is more in line with the grammar.
> At the same time, I really wish we used infinitives ({nu} + {ce'u}).

Some people do use them like that. Personally, I'm undecided, but
since "ce'u" is almost always elided anyway, I don't have much of a
problem with it. It could potentially cause trouble when you have
complex sentences involving both properties and events, for example,
here's one from Alice:

ni'o «lu xu do nelci la noltruni'u —sei la mlatu cu lauble voksa cusku— li'u»
ni'o «lu na sai go'i —sei la .alis. cu cusku— .i ny mutce .y li'u» .i
ca ku .abu sanji lo nu la noltruni'u cu jibni trixe .abu gi'e tirna .i
se ki'u bo di'a cusku «lu lo ka lakne fa lo nu ce'u jinga .i se ki'u
bo na vamji lo temci fa lo nu mo'u kelci li'u»

> The fact that
>  {mi kakne lo nu dansu},
> is interpreted by some people as
>  "There is dancing if I want.",

I think almost everybody would interpret it as "mi kakne lo nu
[mi/ce'u] dansu".

> thus leaving the sentence open to mean
>  "I have a gnome in my house that dances whenever I wish.",
> really sucks.

But the alternative (forbidding any kind of ellision) sucks even more.

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.