Re: [lojban] {.au}/{djica}={.ai}/{?}. No gismu for intention

[Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

On Friday, August 10, 2012 7:37:11 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 10.08.2012 16:54, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:

If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then why there is no gismu for "intention"?

Just {zukte djica}? Just a metaphorical tanru? Or a lujvo again derived from {djica}?

And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not predicates in a predicate language?

.ai = zukte
Someone does something (zukte2) for some purpose (zukte3), all of which is intentional.
The purpose (zukte3) of action z2 is what their intention is in doing zukte2.  (Wow, that is horribly phrased.)

{zukte} = "to intend"? the definition says nothing about that. It should be clarified, that is changed.

Maybe an example will be helpful.

.ai mi na za'u re'u citka lo rectu
~=
mi zukte fi lo nu na ze'u re'u citka lo rectu

You could ask what the zukte2 would be in such cases. I think, often zukte2 and zukte3 can be identical. The action is also the intention, that is, the action is 'intentional'.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

-- 
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/-/SyVTc295WOIJ.
 
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.