Re: [lojban] Confused about Abstractions

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:43 AM, <wolf.finster@gmail.com> wrote:

So, at first learning abstractions seemed pretty straight forward and it all made sense. Understanding the concept and examples was no problem and everything appeared clear. But when I started making up my own sentences I realized nothing was clear at all.

My test sentences were multiple naïve translations of “The dog bites the person”:

(you left out "big" here)

Attempt 1 using tanru:

1) lo barda gerku → lo barda gerku ku batci lo prenu

So this could be paraphrased : The big type of dog bites the person

This sentence is orrect, and sayswhat you want it to say...

Attempt 2 using embedded selbri:

2) a.) lo gerku ku barda → lo gerku ku barda cu batci lo prenu

While this could be paraphrased as (malglice inbound I guess^^): The dog that is big bites the person

"lo gerku ku barda" is already a sentence, exactly equivalent to "lo gerku cu barda" or "lo gerku ku cu barda". barda" It reads "the dog is big". Remember that "ku" is merely the terminator to the "lo..." (think of them as parentheses if you wish, "(lo gerku ku) barda" Since the barda isn't part of a sumti, it gets interpreted as a bridi. Therefore, you can't add another selbri to it. If you want to say "the dog that is big" you want "lo gerku poi barda". It is a relative clause (see chapter 8 of the grammar) "lo gerku poi gerku [ku'o] cu batci lo prenu"

Attempt 3 using 2-times embedded selbri:

“Or is that even grammatical? Maybe it needs to be this...” I wondered:

2) b.) lo lo gerku ku barda ku batci lo prenu - the dog that is a big one bites the person

This one is at least grammatical. It means "the big thing that is associated with the dog bites the person"

“Or maybe I need to use nu kei!”

Attempt 4 using 1-time embedded selbri + abstraction

3) lo nu lo gerku ku barda vau kei ku batci lo prenu - the dog that is big bites the person

This reads "the event of the-dog-being-big is biting a person" Unfortunately, actions don't bite.

“After all I would need to in a sentence like this, wouldn't I? And if so, I don't see a difference between these two, as to why the same construction should not be used in the former.”, was the next thing I thought:

4) mi viska lo nu lo gerku ku barda vau kei ku batci lo prenu kei ku - I see the dog that is big bite the person.

This is not grammatical at all

"I see the dog that is big bite the person" is "mi viska lo nu lo gerku poi barda [ku'o] [ku] cu batci lo prenu"

“Which should mean the same thing as 'mi viska lo nu lo barda gerku ku batci lo prenu kei'... or should it?”

So yea, I am massively confused right now. Could somebody please help tidy up this mess in my head? ^^

In summary, read chapter 8 of the grammar to understand relative clauses.

--gejyspa