Re: [lojban] vamji

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

On 13/04/2014 20:26, Jorge Llambías wrote:

  lo vi cukta cu se vamji lo mutce mi lo nu tadni

  This book is worth a lot to me for studying.

Mmh this looks like an use of {vajni}.

"vajni" has 3 places, but "ko'a vajni ko'e ko'i" can be similar to "lo mutce cu vamji ko'a ko'e ko'i", I agree.

 

 

In your previous example, you used an object as vamji-2, and now you're using an event.

Yes, I think both events and objects can be valuable. Objects and events both exist in space-time, the main difference between them being that objects tend to be relatively well defined in space with fuzzy temporal borders while events are relatively well defined in time with fuzzy spatial borders.

 

I still don't understand the nature and role of vamji's arguments and how they relate to each other.

x3 is a person. x2 is something that x3 can use for x4. Those three places don't seem problematic. x1 is the difficult one, since it's a measure of x2 and measures are hard to do in Lojban. I suppose x1 can be how much x3 is ready to endure in exchange for obtaining x2. I have often used "se vamji lo raktu" for "be worth the trouble". 

 

This gismu seems to be bloated; I don't see why 4 core arguments are necessary.

No argument there. 

Perhaps the relation between vamji-1 and vamji-2 is similar to that between dukse-2 and dukse-1 (respectively)? Otherwise I don't see what vamji-1 is all about.

To me dukse-2 is just a property of dukse-1, like mutce-2, milxe-2, etc. I think vamji-1 is how much vamji-3 is willing to give up (if it's something good)  or endure (if it's bad) in order to obtain (or retain) vamji-2. vamji-1 is something that is put on the scale to be weighed against vamji-2. The benefits of vamji-2 compensate the costs of vamji-1.

"vamji" is similar to "jdima". The difference between them is that jdima-1 is what jdima-3 MUST give up/endure in exchange for jdima-2, while vamji-1 is what vamji-3 IS WILLING TO give up/endure in exchange for vamji-2. That's why you can say "lo vamji be ko'a bei mi cu zmadu/mleca lo jdima be ko'a bei mi". 

 

I wonder how you would have defined vamji's argument structure if you had never seen vamji's definition as it stands in the gimste.

I'm probably already too contaminated by it to contemplate that, but I'd probably drop x4, at least. :)

I would also like a gismu meaning "x1 is worth x2-ing, x1 is x2-able, x1 estas x2-inda", but I don't think vamji as it stands is it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.