Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:49:50 EDT

In a message dated 8/9/2002 5:44:58 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.