[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] ka'e/kakne & mapti/sarxe
On 2 March 2012 14:48, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I do internally interpret nu
> abstractions as having a (possibly elided) ce'u in them (in other
> words, since they are in the same selma'o as ka, I don't see any
> reason to treat one different than the other in the "parts" they
> contain)
They are also in the same selma'o as {du'u}. There is no implicit
or explicit {ce'u} in du'u-clauses.
> 2012/2/21 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> tsani's proposition of defining {kakne} in terms of properties instead of events
>> is quite neat. But I would take a step back before generalizing it to the other
>> (te) gismu mentioned by xorxes.
>>
>> To me, the key point is whether we are talking about some specific event or
>> just about some kind of event.
>>
>> Take {snada} for example. snada2 only refers to a general, abstract state of
>> affairs, as "being king", or "taking a beautiful picture", so it is
>> enough to give
>> a property that x1 tries to attain. On the other hand, snada3 is clearly a
>> specific event, which results in a realisation of snada2.
>>
>> Not having analysed every case, I can safely agree that at least kakne2, snada2
>> and places like "by method" should be filled by properties. {tadji} is
>> an interesting
>> case in which abstract properties seem to be the best fit for the x1,
>> x2 and x3, but
>> there is no specific sumti to which these properties are applied in
>> the definition,
>> suggesting that the original remark that kakne1 has an inherent participation
>> in kakne2 is completely orthogonal to the point.
>>
>> ta'onai
>> ki'esai tsani do ckaji lo na se kakne be mi
>>
>> mu'o
>> mi'e .asiz.
>>
>> On 21 February 2012 22:17, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Somehow I knew this thread might cause a massive debate, hopefully not of
>>> the proportions of that one concerning [zo'e].
>>>
>>> It seems to me as though [nu] being used in bridi of which the selbri is
>>> kakne, bilga, fuzme, etc. is perhaps what's bothering us. [nu] makes sense
>>> for concrete events that are somewhat dissociate from the rest of the bridi,
>>> in the sense that there no "sumti-passing". Perhaps the real solution would
>>> be to allow (or prefer) [ka] in these situations, when "sumti-passing" is
>>> applicable (which for [kakne] it almost always is).
>>>
>>> For example,
>>> mi kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise
>>> This creates a bridi a la [ckaji], which by the way, in my (and some
>>> others') opinion just reduces as such:
>>> mi ckaji lo ka ce'u blanu === mi blanu
>>> [kakne] on the other hand, would reduce into a "ka'e-bridi":
>>> mi kakne lo ka ce'u viska do === mi ka'e viska do
>>> (I'm preparing for mass disagreement :P )
>>> Of course, the reduced form is less precise in saying which is the "capable
>>> sumti", unlike [ckaji], for which it's very obvious.
>>>
>>> (I'm not saying that ckaji is useless; it's very useful for selecting
>>> predicates applying to some sumti, with [lo se ckaji be ko'a], at least
>>> under my interpretation.)
>>>
>>> Also, when it comes to stacked properties/ce'u-enabled clauses, of which I
>>> don't consider [nu] to be a part to be honest, I'd figure that a
>>> non-subscripted ce'u is in the current bridi and that subscripted ones are
>>> 1-based, where 2 is the directly outer bridi. That is to say:
>>> [lo ka ce'u broda lo ka ce'u brode ce'u xi re]; {ce'u xi re} is referring to
>>> broda1. Using [xi pa] would then parallel, in uselessness, [sexipa].
>>>
>>> mu'o mi'e la tsani
>>>
>>> 2012/2/21 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.