Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:02:34 +0100

#>>> <[email-masked]> 08/23/01 09:15pm >>>
#The biggest problem I see with this proposal -- aside from its being 
#unnecessary because it is a response to frivolous quibbles -- 

They aren't frivolous quibbles. They are conflicting but eminently
reasonable desiderata:

* to be able to be unambiguous
* to be able to keep most current usage valid, and to have shortest
forms for most frequently needed meanings
* to be able to avoid having to insert half a dozen dummyish sumti
in order to express a simple idea (such as "Going")

My proposal resolved these conflicts.

#is that it makes no sense. {ka} and {du'u} are part of the same 
#spectrum (and, indeed, seem now to have become identical up to 
#linguistic conventions, which is OK by me) of semantic functions, 
#while {si'o} belongs with {nu} and {li'i} as concrete real world 
#(whatever that may be) events.  

Not in actual usage, AFAICS. 

#Ideas (with one range of exceptions to be dealt with in some detail 
#elsewhere eventually) are mental events in particular people minds, 
#like experiences, and, to a lesser extent, events.  

Given its gloss and its membership in NU, there are two sensical
interpretations of si'o. One where it belongs with du'u and ka,
and one where it belongs with li'i. The intepretations are incompatible;
one must go. Your li'i reading can be done with 
"(nu) -appropriate-cognitive-predicate loi du'u". The du'u/ka
reading can be done with du'u/ka and a lorryload of ce'u.
I prefer to express the li'i reading using cog-pred loi du'u, and
be able to avoid the lorryload of ce'u.

In support of your position is the fact that, like li'i, si'o has an x2,
but this could equally well make sense on the du'u/ka
interpretation, reflecting the philosophy that meanings of
linguistic descriptions vary from speaker to speaker, so we
could debate "loi si'o -democracy kei be la djan" versus
"loi si'o -democracy kei be la bil" .

#These are the realities to which the semantic objects refer (better 
#make that "defer") in various ways. To put {si'o} in with {ka} is either to 
#make all thought abstract and impersonal or all semantics concrete and 
#personal, neither very useful ideas in the long run (monism or solipsism).  

I don't think so. Why would "(nu) -appropriate-cognitive-predicate loi du'u"
do this any more than li'i-like si'o?

--And.