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

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>]

On 21 February 2012 15:29, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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")
>

Yes.

>> 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.
>

(yeah...) I understand you can get that reading, but the point is that
your view that there is always an ellision happening when x1 is not
mentioned may lead to relevantly different guesses of the intended
meaning of a sentence under a given context. From remod's mail,
I would not say he agrees with
> But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by you"?
Do you, remod?

>> 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»
>

If I understand correctly, the only reasonable interpretation is the one in
which the {ce'u} is attached to the {ka}, since lakne1 is not an infinitive.

In order to get that interpretation without looking at the definition
of {lakne},
are you assuming that {ce'u} is never attached to {nu}, as with {du'u}?

Anyway, the means to disambiguate to which of nested abstractors a
{ce'u} corresponds is something that needs to be formally agreed upon,
and to that matter it is essential to decide whether {nu} counts. What
is the status of that?

>> 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.
>

But the alternative _is_ to agree that there is an elision happening.
Accepting that the x1 need not be directly referenced in kakne2
is what forbids you to elide without blurring the meaning.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

-- 
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.