Re: [lojban] Re: jbonunsla 2012: Post #2

[djandus <jandew@gmail.com>]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:40:39 AM UTC-5, selpa'i wrote:

Whether something is too heavy or not depends on whether you can lift it easily/at all or not. If you can't lift it, it's too heavy to lift it, not too heavy to not lift.

I understand somewhat why it's supposed to make sense, but it feels to much like an English thing. At the same time, I'm trying to point out a symmetry and discuss whether it should exist. When comparing a series of negative standards, dukse stands out to me:

lo pipno cu banli lo ka melbi kei lo nu na fusra

"The piano is great in beauty by not decay." (supposing an old piano)

lo pipno cu xamgu do lo nu na danre lo do jamfu

"The piano is beneficial to you by the standard not applying pressure to your hoof." (supposing an eternal optimist)

lo pipno cu cnino fo lo mi nu na pu viska

"The piano is new by standard of me not having seen it before."

lo pipno cu dukse lo ka tilju kei lo nu lo nanmu cu [ka'e] bevri

"The piano is too heavy by the standard of carrying."

Although some of the English is a little awkward, it's for a more literal translation; the meaning is still there. The thing I find odd is that in all of the {broda "by standard" lo nu brode}, {brode .i se ki'u broda}, or at the very least {lo jai brode cu jibni lo jai broda} -- either way, the more true the abstraction bridi, the more support for the overall selbri. All except dukse. It's the only one for which a more true abstraction supports the overall bridi less.

So, my question is, is the "by standard" abstraction merely establishing a scale for which the direction is irrelevant, (for which I would be able to write all of my earlier jufra properly without {na},) or is the direction of the established scale supposed to align positively with the accuracy of the mane bridi? (for which the dukse example above would require a {na})

As a last bit as to why I think this is a coming-from-English issue, note that one of the translations was

"It is too heavy to carry."

which is supposed to help assert that the abstraction is "to carry" not, "to not carry" -- but this is a purely English argument. Once I look at Lojban translations side-by-side, it doesn't line up.

Also, I've been trying to argue that either there is a discrepancy or it shouldn't matter -- either the standard should line up in the same direction, or it can go whichever way along the same axis. Up until this bit

> .i ku'i py na dukse lo ka tilju kei lo nu catke

I was totally in favor of consistently forcing the standard to be in the same direction. However, that reminded me of how terribly obnoxious it would be if any time you wanted to {na}gate the mane bridi you had to {na}gate the abstraction. (Note how suddenly being able to push the piano supports that it is not too heavy.) Plus, (not for lack of trying,) I have yet to imagine a case where the actual correlation would be unclear with context. So, that really makes me want to look at this as the abstraction bridi can go either direction, and the relationship with the mane bridi is context-sensitive. (For instance, if the speaker who presented {lo pipno cu banli lo ka melbi kei lo nu na fusra} was somepony who considered decay a beautiful thing, the piano would be decayed in such a way as to make it obvious what was intended.)

Sorry if that was way too long-winded, but I would really like to know if something in my thought process was crucially wrong.

mu'o mi'e djos.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/svF492JbXsYJ.
 
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.