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

Re: [lojban] Re: Imperative mi'o?



doi dan.
 
Thanks for that background!  The first two links really shed some light on the issue for me, but the third link (Tsani's Interpretation) is over my head.  I'll need to practice and learn more before I can wrap my head around that one.
 
As for IRC, I'd love to - but my job won't allow it...  Speaking of my job - I really should get back to it.  I can tell already, posting on the Lojban groups is going to turn into one of those bad habits I need to avoid at work.  zo'obu
 
Thanks again!
 
mi'e .neit. mu'o

On Friday, April 25, 2014 12:51:06 PM UTC-4, Dan Rosén wrote:
> That being said...  da poi lujvo zo'u da du zo gliban.

Though {gliban} is not a lujvo, it is a cmevla. The common lujvo for English is {glibau}.

>  I suppose also that it does not matter that zo xau is not a cmavo

Well, {xau} is a morphologically a cmavo (so in that sense it is indeed a cmavo), and those of the form xVV and xV'V are for experimental usages (such as {xa'o}, {xo'o}, {xo'e}).
 
> As for your other comment:  That makes sense.  lo'u do drani le'u states
> that you are-the-thing-that-is-right.

Personally, I'm not really sure what can go into drani1, since there is also drani2... It seems that if {lo se cusku be do drani lo ka ce'u broda}, then necessarily {do drani lo ka lo se cusku be ce'u broda}. But I will leave it for other brave souls to show how to correctly use {drani}.
 
> On that note, I can also see how "lo se cusku be mi" is stronger than the
> malgli way of using possessives for everything (lo mi cusku).

Well {lo mi se cusku}, which by definition is the same as {lo se cusku pe mi}, are also fine. What I really wanted to point out was the {se}.
 
> What is the distinction between a property and an event?  Is it a subjective
> matter of "how I want to express this particular thing," or is there an
> objective distinction?

In my opinion, the CLL is a bit confused about properties/{ka}. Some light on the development of {ka} can be found here:

http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/lessacehu.html
    (in particular the sentence "when {ka} was originally invented, {ce'u} didn't exist yet")
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/ka,+du'u,+si'o,+ce'u,+zo'e
    (more history)

A current usage of {ka} is summed up in this excellent article by la tsani:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Tsani's+Interpretations:+Abstractors

I suppose la tsani was inspired by la selpa'i, who writes:
    "I'm sure Gua\spi has been an inspiration for those few, courageous, Lojbanists who went ahead and gave Gua\spi a closer look. Not only did it probably inspire the use of {sei}+{ke'a} as a bridi relative clause in Lojban, it also probably helped the {ka}-volution thanks to its very ce'u-esque gismu definitions."
    (buried in a slightly unrelated blog post http://selpahi.weebly.com/9/post/2013/06/recycling-some-coi-cmavo-not-coi-or-coi.html)

Hopefully this might give you an idea about how {ka} is used, at least by some on IRC. My "creti'i" to you is to visit the IRC channel.

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/d/optout.