Re: [lojban] What place of nesting bridi {ce'u} refers to?

[selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>]

Am 04.10.2012 17:02, schrieb la gleki:>
>
>>     1."I want to eat an apple".
>>
>>     The normal way uses an infinitive compound:
>>
>>     ^:i \ji /daw crw \xo plyw
>>
>>     But you can also use an explicit infinitive:
>>
>>     ^:i \ji /daw \vo crw \xo plyw
>>
>>     2."I want you to eat an apple".
>>
>>     ^:i \ji /gu pli \ju ^vo crw \xo plyw
>>
>>     or
>>
>>     ^:i \ji ^ju /gu pli \crw \xo plyw
>>
>
> But I have a clear feeling that in both sentences the same semantic
> prime can be used. And this prime describes "desire".
> Lojban can replace {ce'u} with anything. Natlangs can do the same.
> gua\spi can't. {to zoi gy. I don't want to criticize gua\spi anymore.
> gy. toi}

You cannot replace ce'u at all or else it's gone and it's not a
ka-abstraction anymore (or not a well-formed one). What natlangs can and 
can't do has little relevance when discussing Lojbanic topics such as 
ka-abstractions.

In Lojban, djica2 is a nu, not a ka. You could say that djica should be
polymorphic and allow both nu and ka, but I don't think that's what
you're saying, is it? (I don't know *what* you are saying).
Why is it a nu? Because you can djica things that don't involve
yourself. (Gua\spi's _daw_ is restricted to desiring to do or be
something, hence it's always like a Lojban ka. And that's why the second 
example uses a different predicate.)

Again, what is the difference between the Lojban and the gua\spi sentence?

>
>>
>>     btw, what is your opinion about {ka=su'u ce'u}?
>>
>>     I'm not sure how to answer that question. You can say that ka is
>>     du'u ce'u, I don't know what the advantage is in defining ka in
>>     terms of su'u, because to me su'u could then mean nu or ni, which
>>     means that ka could become nu ce'u or ni ce'u. So why not use a more
>>     precise abstractor? Also, what is the point anyway? ka has at least
>>     one ce'u in it, that's pretty clear to almost everyone. Why do you
>>     need to use su'u here?
>
>
> Well, I used su'u because wasn't sure about {du'u}. And {* lo ka lo
> penbi cu clani } had bewildered me.
> I just wanna know whether it would be correct to add the definition of
> {ka=du'u ce'u} into jvs or not.

That seems pointless and it's not a real definition either. You can't 
blindly replace "ka" with "du'u ce'u". It has been said many times that 
"a ka-abstraction is a du'u-abstraction that contains at least one 
ce'u". This is one view you can have, I don't know if everybody would 
agree with it. We don't just add definitions for the cmavo, that's the 
job of the - currently idle - BPFK.
Sorry, I don't understand your motivation here. Try to be a bit more 
clear, please.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
   .i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
   .i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
   .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku

--
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.