[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] [oz] {zilzba}
la .asiz. cu cusku di'e
The only occurrences of this is:
(1) {lo můdri poi zy ke'a zělzba}
(2) {zělzba lo tŕnbo jo'u lo jěmca}
(3) {lo mčlbi děnju poi ro ke'a zělzba lo crěno marmŕro}
(4) {lo mčlbi noldě'u poi zělzba lo bŕrda blěku be lo zirxůnjme}
(5) {lo bŕrda stčdu noi zělzba lo so'i pčlji sčnta}
What all of these have in common is that they involve human-made
objects, so the idea of {zbasu} is still in the air, even though who
built them is made irrelevant by the {zi'o}.
1. Isn't {marji} perfect for this sense of "x1 is made of x2"?
It's certainly not wrong.
Maybe we could say that {zilzba} is a hyponym of {marji}.
2. Regardless of {marji}, do you, selpa'i, use zil-forms, such as zilzba
and zilcintypu'i, for plain ontologic economy, for place structure
convenience, or for something else?
I tend to use {zil-} when the otherwise present sumti place would get in
the way. It happens very frequently that {X se dunda fi Z}, using both
SE and FA to skip around the completely irrelevant x1 place of dunda.
The same applies to {zbasu} and {cintypu'i}. I often find {zil-} a bit
ugly, but I seem to like it in {zilzba}. I also tend to call {zil-}
"Lojban's true passive", which I don't think is what {se} is. The agent
(who tends to be in the x1 place) gets removed entirely from the place
structure with {zi'o}, just like in a passive construction.
mi'e la selpa'i 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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.