[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Am 05.10.2012 16:41, schrieb la gleki:



On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:47:16 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

    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).


True. Still the same brivla can be used. Unlike gua\spi.
No, it can not. If you "ce'u-ize" the gimste, for instance by saying that djica2 ba a ka (which is a bad example, but it illustrates the point), then you will not be able to use it for "I want you to broda", because that's a different predicate that doesn't involve yourself in the abstraction. This is a *strenght* of gua\spi; its predicates are semantically much clearer. 




    What natlangs can and
    can't do has little relevance when discussing Lojbanic topics such as
    ka-abstractions.


Then gua\spi has little relevance too.
What? Gua\spi is not a natlang, and you brought up Gua\spi in the first place. Gua\spi's entire gimste is ce'u-ized, that's what it looks like. 





    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).


My only complaint  that we have a nice shortcut of saying {du'u ce'u}
but we don't have one for {nu ce'u}.
But ka is not a shortcut for du'u ce'u... ka is what you get if you have a du'u abstraction and add a ce'u to it. 



    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?


Hopefully no semantic difference. Looks like Lojban just gives more
freedom in recombining the same words without drawing in extra predicates.
Okay, but that wasn't even your original point. And as I tried to explain above, you get seperate predicates if you ce'u-ize the gimste. One will be 

x1 wants to be/do x2 (ka)

the other will be

x1 wants/wishes/desires that x2 (nu) happen

Is that what you want or not?




Let's stop arguing and let's ce'u-ize gimste :).

How the new ce'u-ized definitions of gismu should look like in ur opinion?
Just look at gua\spi's gimste. It did everything right in that regard, but you have to remember that gua\spi is not Lojban, and not everything can be copied 1:1. 

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.