On 6 October 2012 09:33, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:21:14 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:Why is having a {ce'u} in djica *so* important? We've gotten along *just fine* using {zo'e} there, even though it refers to djica1 in a lot of cases.zo'e doesn't refer to first places of nesting bridi.It's equally unnatural to say {mi djica lo nu mi sipna} by repeating {mi} two times. If onlu we had some analogue to {ce'u} or {ri} referring to the previous sumti even if it's {mi}.Indeed, {zo'e} can refer to *anything* (with some exceptions). If it's clear that it's {mi}, then it's {mi}. Remember, *this has never been a problem before*. To really solve this problem, we could redefine djica to use only ka+ce'u, but that would violently break usage, and leaving us with {pacna} for old-djica.
--.i mi'e la tsani mu'oThere are some selbri, say kakne, where {zo'e} in the abstraction kakne2 breaks the meaning in some way, such as {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise}. IMO selbri that get *weird* when there's no ce'u should have {ka}.Furthermore, nu+ce'u is strange to me, because {ce'u} marks an argument slot in a function, but {nu}, et al., abstractions are never function-abstractions. As I detail in my analysis of abstractors, there're two classes of abstractors, namely function-abstractors and non-function-abstractors. It gets a bit fuzzy eventually, because some abstractors are function when they contain {ce'u}, but can equally not contain {ce'u}. {ni} is an example of such an abstractor:{.i mi zmadu do lo ni xendo} vs {.i lo ni mi prami do cu zmadu lo ni do nelci lo mlatu kei du bu} (du bu is the identity function).The advantage of not allow {ce'u} inside {nu} is that {nu} are as a result completely self-contained entities. {lo nu mi do cinba} forms one single object that doesn't depend on the containing bridi.As for {su'u}, it turns out that it's simply a vague abstractor, and that's it. It's a stand-in for any regular abstractor, and its type is completely context-dependent. Although this has never really happened as far as I know, it would, however, be possible to create new types of abstractors by means of su'u2..i mi'e la tsani mu'oOn 5 October 2012 21:47, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:36:18 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote: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.Well, I'm not sure if we should ce'u-ize gismu with {nu} abstractions.But if do this for {djica} then it would be1.{mi djica lo nu ce'u citka}2.{mi djica lo nu do citka}That's all I want. But gua\spi's /daw/ can't do that.We could also say {mi djica lo nu ce'u citka i do na go'i} = "I want to eat but you don't" (if {go'i} is able to update the value of {ce'u} in the previous sentence, of course)This is a *strenght* of gua\spi; its predicates are
semantically much clearer.Well, well, I don't want someone to stop learning gua\spi because "gua\spi is a crap. I know, la gleki told me". :)To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms--
>
> 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.g/lojban/-/WyFuvnW2QSEJ .
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.msg/lojban/-/JzUcrDw0IJAJ .
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en .