[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] A Short Story
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de
<mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>> wrote:
I'd gloss kansa as "mitmachen"/"begleiten" in German, which mean "to
accompany, to go along with". And {kansi'u} would still give us a
symmetric {kansa}.
OK, let's assume that there is an asymmetry, analogous to one we might
posit between the x2 and x3 of sumji. lo kansi'u is like lo sumji, lo
kansa is like lo te sumji and lo se kansa is like lo se sumji.
Right.
x2 and x3
of jmina also seem to have this asymmetry, although "jmina" is given two
different definitions, one in which x2 is added to x3 and the other in
which x2 is augmented by x3. "mi jmina lo silna lo cidja" or "mi jmina
lo cidja lo silna"?
Here I always use the former definition. jmina3 is what's already there,
and jmina2 is what is being added to it.
By the above logic, {nonkansa} would mean "accompanying no one",
"going along with no one", somewhat in the sense of "withholding
support". I'm not sure what a concrete usage example could be
though, but it feels like there should be a use for it. (if not,
then the sel- could be scrapped from the lujvo). Maybe:
da'i mi kansa no da lo nu/ka klama lo kensa
"I wouldn't accompany anyone to outer space."
You choose to read it as "I wouldn't accompany anyone in *their* journey
to outer space", but couldn't it also just as well be read as "I
wouldn't be accompanying anyone in *my* journey to outer space"?
This depends on what kansa means; The reading you are introducing here
would work if kansa means "x1 does x3, thereby accompanying x2's doing
x3" or something like that. This isn't exactly how I'd have thought of
kansa (but who knows). Instead, to me x2's doing x3 doesn't depend on
x1's doing x3. I'd almost say x1 isn't doing anything by themselves,
it's only adding itself to x2.
Even if there is an asymmetry in kansa, I think both "nonselkansa" and
"nonkansa" should still mean "alone". In one case, alone by virtue of
not being joined by anyone else, in the other case by virtue of not
joining anyone else.
Sure. Those two meanings stand to reason.
If zero is added to a quantity or if that quantity
is added to zero, the result is still the same, even if it is reached by
different processes.
If kansa1 does kansa3 no matter what, then that's true. If there is no
x3 without x2 doing it, then there is nothing for kansa1 to join in on.
The full definition in any case requires more that "be no da":
nonkansa: ko'a kansa no da ko'e .ije ko'a ckaji ko'e
nonselkansa: ko'a se kansa no da ko'e .ije ko'a ckaji ko'e
The second part is necessary because otherwise all we have is a negation
but no affirmation that ko'a does do something alone.
Good point! I missed that.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
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.