From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:56:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:56:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 96906 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:03 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907005001.NZDQ710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:50:01 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:18 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xod: > > > I see what you're saying. But the li'i needs a focus. Are you suggesting > > > we bust out yet another cmavo rather than use ce'u in li'i? > > > > The li'i doesn't always need a focus: {le li'i da carvi kei be mi} = > > my experience of it raining. > > How can you experience it raining? Are you experiencing {li'i ce'u carvi}, > being rain? Or being rained upon (li'i carvi ce'u}? Or being a something > cloud-like, that generates rain {li'i carvi fi ce'u}? Pissing out of a > window is part of the carvi experience just as much as getting dripped on > from an air conditioner. Without ce'u, only flimsy contextual clues > provide the data. You may be right. But we can certainly say {mi lifri lo nu da carvi}, without specifying the exact way I was involved in or impinged on by it raining. And for many experiences it's hard to be precise: e.g. my experiences of the Northern Ireland conflict -- which are largely indirect but very multifarious and multitudinous. > So "my experience of me belching" should > > be {le li'i mi kafke kei be mi}, not {le li'i ce'u kafke kei be mi}. > > Next you'll declare the second mi redundant and try to get away with {li'i > mi kafke}. No, not at all. I don't deny that there must be an experiencer. I just strongly question whether the experiencer must be involved in the experience bridi. --And.