From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 09 16:49:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 23:49:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 14513 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 23:49:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 23:49:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 23:49:54 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.19e.6b581d2 (4584) for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19e.6b581d2.2a85af1e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:49:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_19e.6b581d2.2a85af1e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_19e.6b581d2.2a85af1e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/9/2002 5:44:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > {dasni fi lo'e kosta} would be like {kostydasni}, defined as > "x1 wears x2 as a coat", and {dasni fi lo'e skaci} would be > like {skacydasni} defined as "x1 wears x2 as a skirt". > {dasni fi zi'o} is simply "x1 wears x2". In that sense I meant > them to be alike. Of course each has a different meaning. > I'm sorry; the way you brought that up made it seem like you had a special point here rather than a (largely irrelevant) truism. Notice that {dasni vi le birka janco} behaves just like {biryjancydasni} define as "x1 wears x2 on his shoulders as x3". I don't see what that has to do with {lo'e}, since it works as well with any sumti place. << How does Spanish enter here? Spanish works almost like English in this case, although no article is normally used for "coat": "Usa la frazada como saco". "Usa la frazada como un saco" is also possible, with a slight difference in sense. In the first case, the sense is more that the blanket is playing the role of a coat, fulfilling its function. In the second case the sense is that he wears it the way he would wear a coat. Very slight difference. But in no case is there a coat claimed to be a part of the action.>> Sorry again. Iassumed that the Spanish translation of the cmavo list would have {lo'e} described as an archetype of rather than a typical member of . Glad to hear that I am wrong (if that is the mesage you are sending). The first Spanish case here is interesting because it precisely does not suggest that there is a coat involved and that may be what colors your view of the matter -- though throwing in an archetype rather than a coat hardly helps. The second is, of course, just like the English and my recommended Lojban and generates one or the other of the same products, though I don't know which one. Your remarks suggests the intentional one: a possible coat, even if not one in this world. << I never meant my rhetoric to rely on finding exactly one. Finding at least one is my problem. I don't think there is any coat at all to be found such that he wears the blanket as it. >> But you keep referring to "it" which says both that there is one thing there and, from other remarks, only one. But I now understand your remarks to be intentional, so, no problem. Except, of course, that in the intentional frame there is such a coat. << >or else the whole is >an intentional context out of which the referent is raised (and should be >labelled {tu'a} or otherwise marked), in which case, what is involved is >still a coat but not necessarily one in this world -- a possible coat, more >or less. I guess that approaches what I mean. That's why I use {lo'e}. >> Non sequitur. What does {lo'e}, in either sense, have to do with intentional contexts? {lo'e broda} for every broda that is proper (as {kosta} surely is) is in this world and so quantifiable to a {da}. << But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because no coat is involved in the relationship. >> You do keep saying that, but I still don't see what the evidence is for the claim (other than that you don't know how to find one of those involved -- which was not claimed). << can I say for example: {le nu mi punji le cukta le jubme cu cpana le jubme}: "My putting the book on the table is on the table"? >> Well, I expect that there are subtleties galore here, but this seems at least partly right. I think the event is probably in you (maybe just your hand) and the book and the table top when they are reasonably continuous. This (poke-in-the-eye) kind of case does seem to happen primarily where all the components are together. Of course, it also happens in such-and-such a room, in such-and-such a town (and many subdivisions thereof) and so on (the address every kid of a certain age puts on a letter to some friend). Of course, the whole is complicated by the fact that events exist in Lojban even when (and where?) they don't occur. Enchanting, as I said. --part1_19e.6b581d2.2a85af1e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/9/2002 5:44:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


{dasni fi lo'e kosta} would be like {kostydasni}, defined as
"x1 wears x2 as a coat", and {dasni fi lo'e skaci} would be
like {skacydasni} defined as "x1 wears x2 as a skirt".
{dasni fi zi'o} is simply "x1 wears x2". In that sense I meant
them to be alike. Of course each has a different meaning.


I'm sorry; the way you brought that up made it seem like you had a special point here rather than a (largely irrelevant) truism.  Notice that {dasni vi le birka janco} behaves just like {biryjancydasni} define as "x1 wears x2 on his shoulders as x3".  I don't see what that has to do with {lo'e}, since it works as well with any sumti place.

<<
How does Spanish enter here? Spanish works almost like
English in this case, although no article is normally used
for "coat": "Usa la frazada como saco". "Usa la frazada
como un saco" is also possible, with a slight difference in
sense. In the first case, the sense is more that the blanket
is playing the role of a coat, fulfilling its function. In
the second case the sense is that he wears it the way he
would wear a coat. Very slight difference. But in no case
is there a coat claimed to be a part of the action.>>

Sorry again.  Iassumed that the Spanish translation of the cmavo list would have  {lo'e} described as an archetype of rather than a typical member of .  Glad to hear that I am wrong (if that is the mesage you are sending).  The first Spanish case here is interesting because it precisely does not suggest that there is a coat involved and that may be what colors your view of the matter -- though throwing in an archetype rather than a coat hardly helps. The second is, of course, just like the English and my recommended Lojban and generates one or the other of the same products, though I don't know which one.  Your remarks suggests the intentional one: a possible coat, even if not one in this world.

<<
I never meant my rhetoric to rely on finding exactly one.
Finding at least one is my problem. I don't think there is
any coat at all to be found such that he wears the blanket
as it.
>>
But you keep referring to "it" which says both that there is one thing there and, from other remarks, only one.  But I now understand your remarks to be intentional, so, no problem.  Except, of course, that in the intentional frame there is such a coat.

<<
>or else the whole is
>an intentional context out of which the referent is raised (and should be
>labelled {tu'a} or otherwise marked), in which case, what is involved is
>still a coat but not necessarily one in this world -- a possible coat, more
>or less.

I guess that approaches what I mean. That's why I use {lo'e}.
>>

Non sequitur.  What does {lo'e}, in either sense, have to do with intentional contexts?  {lo'e broda} for every broda that is proper (as {kosta} surely is) is in this world and so quantifiable to a {da}.

<<
But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because
no coat is involved in the relationship.
>>
You do keep saying that, but I still don't see what the evidence is for the claim (other than that you don't know how to find one of those involved -- which was not claimed). 

<<
can I say for example: {le nu mi punji
le cukta le jubme cu cpana le jubme}: "My putting the book on
the table is on the table"?
>>

Well, I expect that there are subtleties galore here, but this seems at least partly right.  I think the event is probably in you (maybe just your hand) and the book and the table top when they are reasonably continuous.  This (poke-in-the-eye) kind of case does seem to happen primarily where all the components are together.  Of course, it also happens in such-and-such a room, in such-and-such a town (and many subdivisions thereof) and so on (the address every kid of a certain age puts on a letter to some friend).  Of course, the whole is complicated by the fact that events exist in Lojban even when (and where?) they don't occur. Enchanting, as I said.





 --part1_19e.6b581d2.2a85af1e_boundary--