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

Re: [lojban] strange behaviour of {cortu}



On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:21:29 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote:
I still don't see the problem. And, while I agree with most of tsani's
stance on use
of abstractions, I think he went too far here. The locus of pain IS a
concrete object,
and the fact that it is usually described with a part-whole relation
doesn't mean that
it has to be always like that. Consider
  {mi cortu lo xunre}


Well, he said he was semi-serious. Next, IMO this is not lojban but a dialect of it. Lastly, this shows how this problem could be solved.

I can't say that I like such solution, it's a bit awkward but shows the idea.


mu'o
mi'e .asiz.


On 9 February 2013 02:32, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 7:17:48 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>>
>> On 8 February 2013 02:21, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The "problem" appeared when i tried to translate the following sentence
>>> from Tatoeba.
>>>
>>> "My back hurts."
>>>
>>> If we assume that back is {bekpi} (cuz Robin needed a gismu for it)
>>> then we have three options.
>>>
>>> 1. mi cortu lo bekpi
>>> 2. cortu lo bekpi be mi
>>> 3. mi cortu lo bekpi be mi
>>>
>>> The third solution is verbose and therefore doesn't reflect relations
>>> between sumti in a nice way.
>>> I guess Lojban is just unable to express this in a more concise way.
>>> May be
>>> 4. bekpi je selcortu mi ?
>>>
>>> I wish I could bind {bekpi} and {selcortu} with {du} but I can't.
>>>
>>
>> I created a semi-serious solution to this problem when it first occurred
>> to me too. I propose using a property + an indirect question as a verbose
>> albeit consistent system: {.i mi cortu lo ka [makau] bekpi [ce'u]}.
>
>
> cortu2 becomes an abstraction? well,..... then indeed it would work.
>
> stevo, you might think of tsani's solution as of the solution to the issue.
> Whether it's compatible with the current lojban or not is another question.
>
>> My rationale for disapproving of concrete sumti in this case is the same
>> as my rationale for disapproving of events in kakne2: you should be able to
>> use any concrete sumti (or event in the case of kakne2) but you can't
>> because bullshit. (Indeed {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} is nonsense.)
>> This extends to any case where you have a concrete sumti with the
>> restriction that it is intrinsically tied to another sumti.
>> e.g. {mi bajra fi lo ka makau jubme ce'u}
>> Naturally, we can use tanru (and jvajvo!) to make these formulas shorter.
>> {mi bekpi cortu}.
>>
>> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>


On 9 February 2013 02:32, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 7:17:48 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
>>
>> On 8 February 2013 02:21, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The "problem" appeared when i tried to translate the following sentence
>>> from Tatoeba.
>>>
>>> "My back hurts."
>>>
>>> If we assume that back is {bekpi} (cuz Robin needed a gismu for it)
>>> then we have three options.
>>>
>>> 1. mi cortu lo bekpi
>>> 2. cortu lo bekpi be mi
>>> 3. mi cortu lo bekpi be mi
>>>
>>> The third solution is verbose and therefore doesn't reflect relations
>>> between sumti in a nice way.
>>> I guess Lojban is just unable to express this in a more concise way.
>>> May be
>>> 4. bekpi je selcortu mi ?
>>>
>>> I wish I could bind {bekpi} and {selcortu} with {du} but I can't.
>>>
>>
>> I created a semi-serious solution to this problem when it first occurred
>> to me too. I propose using a property + an indirect question as a verbose
>> albeit consistent system: {.i mi cortu lo ka [makau] bekpi [ce'u]}.
>
>
> cortu2 becomes an abstraction? well,..... then indeed it would work.
>
> stevo, you might think of tsani's solution as of the solution to the issue.
> Whether it's compatible with the current lojban or not is another question.
>
>> My rationale for disapproving of concrete sumti in this case is the same
>> as my rationale for disapproving of events in kakne2: you should be able to
>> use any concrete sumti (or event in the case of kakne2) but you can't
>> because bullshit. (Indeed {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} is nonsense.)
>> This extends to any case where you have a concrete sumti with the
>> restriction that it is intrinsically tied to another sumti.
>> e.g. {mi bajra fi lo ka makau jubme ce'u}
>> Naturally, we can use tanru (and jvajvo!) to make these formulas shorter.
>> {mi bekpi cortu}.
>>
>> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.