From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Wed Nov 10 13:21:18 1999 X-Digest-Num: 280 Message-ID: <44114.280.1559.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:21:18 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" x1 (action/event/state) motivates/is a motive/incentive for > action/event x2, per volition of x3 > > I'm not quite sure what the third place is meant to be, though.>> > >I suppose that the1>3 conversion of mukti would do nicely for the original >sentence then I think it doesn't help, because x3 is the agent of event x2, not of event x1: x1: John laughs x2: Robin hits John x3: Robin A more clear wording for {mukti} might be "x1 motivates x3 to do x2". I think the "per volition of x3" roundabout was used to keep the arguments in Lojban order. > < to get out of the problem!>> >Not really. It is a regular feature of the grammars of all the languages I >know (not a huge list, to be sure, but fairly diverse). Lojban's only >peculiarity is that it marks the feature explicitly rather than by >implication -- either lexically or by paradox -- and that change is >required >by the claim to be a logical language. Is there any way of telling when sumti raising should be marked and when it isn't necessary? For example: (1) la djan mukti le nu la robin darxi dy John motivates Robin to hit him. (2) le nu la djan mi'afra cu mukti le nu la robin darxi dy John's laughter motivates Robin to hit him. (3) le nu le nu la djan mi'afra cu fanza cu mukti le nu la robin darxi dy John's laughter being annoying motivates Robin to hit him. I find that (2) is more specific than (1), John laughing is just one little part of John, that part which is most responsible for motivating Robin's action. But so is (3) with respect to (2). It is not everything about the laughter that motivates Robin, it is the specific property of it being annoying. If (1) requires {tu'a}, does (2) require it too? And if it does, then so does (3), because we could always narrow the motive down even more. How can we determine whether John, his laughter, or the annoying character of his laughter are being unmarkedly (and so incorrectly) raised or not? co'o mi'e xorxes