I consider {cirko} to have similar issues to {binxo}; if it's going to have anything to do with properties, it should always have to do with properties, but since properties are just predicates in my usage, {binxo} is essentially redundant to {co'a}. {cirko} as only having to do with {co'u ponse} would be fine, but if it has to do with a property then it is again redundant to just {co'u}.
The rest are straightforwardly fine, to me; things like {melbi} fall into a general category of "pre-jai'd" gismu, which are a bit odd but useful and pe'i consistent.
mu'o mi'e la latro'a
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:I should make my point more clear.Look at the following.prami x1 loves/feels strong affectionate devotion towards x2 (object/state).dirba x1 is dear/precious/darling to x2; x1 is emotionally valued by x2; x1 may be a specific object, a commodity (mass), an event, or a propertypluka x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under conditions x3.melbi x1 is beautiful/pleasant to x2 in aspect x3 (ka) by aesthetic standard x4.And last but not leastcirko -cri- x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3; x1 loses property/feature x2 in conditions/situation x3; x2 may be a specific object, a commodity (mass), an event (rare for cirko), or a property.This last example shows something mutce lo ka cizra.If we can easily interchange objects and abstractions in {lo se prami, lo dirba, lo se cirko} omitting {tu'a} then it would be reasonable to ask:"What the hell is {tu'a} for?" If lojban is not consistent in using it at all, why not omit it all the time?Then we'll get those {mi sisku lo penbi} (in la selpa'i 's dialect) and even {mi djica lo plise}.
On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:46:15 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:Again Google Groups didn't let me resurrect this old discussion. So please follow the link to follow the whole discussion.And now it's my turn to ask the community once again after 18 years of disinterest.{djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all beendealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still acceptsobjects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place wasdirectly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesibleentity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a propertyof said thing.Why not treat them all the same?The transparent case:{mi djica lo tanxe} = "There is a box wanted by me"{mi nitcu lo tanxe} = "There is a box needed by me"{mi sisku lo tanxe} = "There is a box sought by me"One more moment. Are there any other gismu that have the same "problem"?
On Tuesday, November 22, 1994 4:03:33 AM UTC+4, Jorge Llambias wrote:la lojbab cusku di'e> Of course there is nothing strange about a brivla relating two objects - a
> seeker and the thing known-and-sought-after, and having a certain predicate
> relating them. The problem that I see is that there is more than one such
> predicate, and the choice is dependent on the specificity (or is that
> definiteness %^) of x2 vs. its opacity, etc., and what the desire is of the
> seeker for the final state after finding.The problem is transparency vs opacity. Transparent references can be
specific or nonspecific, and that can be marked with the appropriate
quantifiers, but we don't have any way to mark explicitly opaque references.The other properties that you mention, like desires of the seeker for what
to do after (or rather if) the sought after thing is found, are not really
to the point. If you want a place for them I guess you do need a lujvo.Also, in English, the meaning of "seek an object" has been generalized
to "seek knowledge", where by "finding it", we mean that we get to
know the truth value of some utterance. (I suppose that's what you call the
seeking of science.) I don't have a problem with letting this metaphorical
extension into Lojban, but in any case this is not part of the opaque problem.An interesting property of sisku as it is defined now, is that the lambda
variable of its property really never takes a value. Normally, the lambda
variable of a property corresponds to one or more of the places of the
selbri (for example for {zmadu}, it's the x1 and x2) but for sisku, there
is no place for the thing being sought, so there is no place that fits the
lambda variable.> WE have other cases in Lojban where the Lojban word covers a misleading
> subset of the English meanings of the keywords ("old" and "know" being two
> cases that come to mind).BTW, because of my mail problems a month or so ago I never found out whether
{citno} means "young", so that it only refers to living things, or whether
it is more general. Would an "old car" in lojban be a {tolcitno karce} or
a {tolcnino karce}?> In all such casesa we have learned to live with the
> fact that the English word is tto broad and have come up with lujvo for the
> alternative meanings. Such lujvo can always exist, and if this whole
> issue of "lo" and "existence" blows away. the number of distinctions we need
to
> make may be reduced. But I remain unconvinced of this - as pc said a while
> back in this discussion - there are some predicates that embody a hidden
> abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with thisWhat do you mean by "some predicates"? English verbs, like "want", "need",
"look for", etc, or Lojban predicates like {djica}, {nitcu}, {sisku}, etc.?I totally agree that the English verbs can accept opaque references as direct
objects, without any marking. They also, in other contexts, can take transparent
direct objects.Because of the logical aspect of Lojban, this can't work like that in Lojban,
and so the arguments are always transparent.But, the fact is that the opaque meaning is often very useful for these
predicates, so what do we do?I propose to find one solution for all such predicates, rather than patches
for each of them. {djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all been
dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still accepts
objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place was
directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible
entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a property
of said thing.Why not treat them all the same?
The transparent case:
{mi djica lo tanxe} = "There is a box wanted by me"
{mi nitcu lo tanxe} = "There is a box needed by me"
{mi sisku lo tanxe} = "There is a box sought by me"and the opaque case:
{mi djica xe'e lo tanxe} = "I want a box (I don't care which)"
{mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe} = "I need a box (I don't care which)"
{mi sisku xe'e lo tanxe} = "I seek a box (I don't care which)"(I don't mind using {lo'e} instead of {xe'e lo}, I think it makes sense
as well.)As things stand now, for the transparent case I have to say:
{da poi tanxe zo'u mi djica tu'a da}
{mi nitcu lo tanxe}
{da poi tanxe zo'u mi sisku le ka du da}Why so complicated?
> mi'e la lojbab noi sisku loka lo danfu be le me zo sisku me'u nabmi
> cu mansa rodaThat doesn't make much sense to me. You probably mean {noi sisku lo ka danfu
le me zo sisku me'u nabmi gi'e mansa roda}, otherwise you are saying that
you are looking for something with property an answer satisfies everyone,
but what is it that you look for? the answer, everyone? I think this is an
unnecessarily complicated way to deal with {sisku}.Jorge
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/aTfTDbKnrqUJ.--
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.