Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:41:46 EDT

In a message dated 8/8/2002 4:39:55 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > > I would use {lo'e} there: {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta}.
> >
> >Or, in the less xorxean way, just {lo}. ;-)
> 
> But {lo} doesn't work either! {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo kosta}
> means that there is _some coat_ such that ko'a wears the blanket
> as _that coat_. But that's not what wearing a blanket as a coat
> means

Maybe not what it "means" (whatever that means in this context), but it is a 
certainly true description. It only sounds weird if you get the idea that 
you -- or ko'a -- can identify *which* coat it is or if you think it makes a 
difference which coat it is. But ignoring those questions is just what 
particular quantifiers are for. On the other hand, he can't wear it for lo'e 
ki\osta, because neither a typical nor an arechetypal coat is something that 
he could wear, being abstract or supernatural (assuming you don't just mean 
{lo} by {lo'e}).

<<
> > And how would be "He wears a blanket on his shoulders" then?
>
>Good question! {ko'a dasni le boxfo vi/gu'a le birka janco} do not feel
>right.

That's because it would have the sense of "He wears a blanket
on the mountain". Spatial tenses give the location of the event,
in this case the event of wearing.

Well, where else does the event of wearing something on one's shoulders take 
place other than on one's shoulders. It may take place some wider places in 
addition, which are of interest, but they don't negate the first and primal 
place. However, we might try another fix -- which is less accurate, but 
somehow less offensive:
{ko'a dansi le boxfo be/pe vi le birka janco} (I'm not sure just what the 
difference is between the two alternatives -- {ne}, which is also 
grammatical, seems to be too casual a connection).

<<
> ko'a dasni le boxfo le janco taxfu
>or
> ko'a dasni le boxfo le janco gacri

I think those work, but using {lo'e} instead of {le} in x3.
Even {lo'e janco cpana}.
But 1) it ain't wearable and 2) there ain't one anyhow. There is neither 
archeteype nor typical thing to be on a shoulder. We can pretend there is 
one as an idiom, but I wonder if we are really ready for idioms here yet, 
since we often screw up the literals (and idioms seem at this point a 
copout).