Re: [lojban] Possession/transfer/exchange predicates

Okay, for most possession ralbrivla I added "located" back, changed djeni4 to "property of x1".

Should kavbu2 be a property too ("I caught cold")?

All possession ralbrivla are under "klesi B Action. Possesion interactions". Please inform if I missed any.

So we have

1. number

2. property but not located

3. located but not property.

4. subtypes

So if we see any property place that can take a value which would never interact with other places then a "located" should be added as a possible type to it.

The same for "located". If it can interact with other places then it is also a "property" (or only a "property").

2014-06-14 23:12 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

As of now I suggest that we have the following types:

1. "numeral"

A numeral is a thing, and the abstraction it represents is a number.

Sorry, then it should be

1. "number"

zoi ke 5 ke cu nacle'u
"5" is a numeral.

li mu cu namcu
Five is a number.

2. "thing" (can be an object, an event but not a property). "thing" doesn't interact with other te sumti of the same brivla.

But a brivla always expresses a relationship among all of its sumti. Besides, even if we are talking about interactions with property arguments, the places for the thing-with-property will normally be places for things. How could we say that ckaji1 doesn't interact with ckaji2?

3. "property" (can have ce'u or may have ce'u omitted, thus it can always include "thing")

By "omitted" do you mean not stated explicitly, or not present even implicitly? If you mean the first, that's fine, we can say that "lo ka ce'u broda" and "lo ka broda" both refer to the same property even though "ce'u" is omitted in the second one. But you must mean something else. Are you saying that "lo plise" is a property with "ce'u" omitted?

I notice that you have left only properties in most of the possession places, but I think that's wrong.

Well, do you mean that there might be places that allow only "property" but not a "located"?

ckaji2 would be the prime candidate for that. There are lots of places that have traditionally been considered to be only for properties (mutce2, simlu2, etc.) I can see how these too could be repurposed, but that's a whole new discussion.

The property-as-possession metaphor should be the secondary meaning, not the main one.

I don't distinguish secondary and main meanings.

I meant we should not throw away the basic meanings in favor of more abstract extensions. It doesn't matter whether we call the extension secondary or not, it should not annihilate the original source meaning.

The main meaning should be for the concrete possession.

Then why not just state that our ad hoc term "property" denotes a place where the main meaning is a non-{ce'u} place, and the secondary is a {ce'u}-place?

But then wouldn't you be losing track of your original purpose for doing this? Wouldn't it be misleading to use "property" in a way that doesn't match the usual sense of that word?

for me "property" is a place that can interact with other places with {ce'u}.

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.