From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Jul 27 19:15:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 28 Jul 2001 02:15:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 31136 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2001 02:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Jul 2001 02:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Jul 2001 02:15:48 -0000 Received: from m54-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.54] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15QJOe-0002mY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:00:05 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: kargu mleca Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:14:48 +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" Jorge: > la adam cusku di'e > > >This seems like "abstraction raising" to me. "ko'a sisku lo ka broda > >kei le klesi" means that ko'a is looking for something which has the > >property of broda-ness in the set, which should be able to be > >expressed by "ko'a sisku lo ckaji be lo ka broda kei le klesi" which > >is just the same as "ko'a sisku lo broda le klesi". > > The problem the gi'uste wants to avoid is that in {ko'a sisku > lo broda}, the quantifier of {lo broda} is at the bridi level, and > this is not what we want to claim in some cases. I don't want to > claim that there is something less expensive, such that I am looking > for that very something. But turning the x2 of sisku into a property > is a crazy way of solving this problem. > > Let's compare three predicates where this issue comes up: sisku, > djica and nitcu. The gi'uste handles each of them differently: > sisku gets the object turned into a property, djica gets an event, > and nitcu apparently comes out unscathed. > > So, even when there is no quantification problem, we are supposed > to say weird stuff like: > > mi nitcu do i mi djica le nu do co'e i mi sisku le ka du do > I need you. I want you. I'm looking for you. > > instead of the expected {mi nitcu do i mi djica do i mi sisku do}. > > Much better in my opinion is to leave them with their original > meaning and then say: > > mi nitcu lo'e kargu mleca > I need something less expensive. > > mi djica lo'e kargu mleca > I want something less expensive. > > mi sisku lo'e kargu mleca > I'm looking for something less expensive. Since we are retreading an old debate here, I will chime in with my preference, which is to stop using nitcu/djica/sisku and use lujvo with the form: mi [something]-zei-nitcu/djica/sisku tu'o du'u co'e loi kargu mleca the key features of which are * not using nitcu/djica/sisku * having a du'u x2 * x2 contains co'e or more explicit selbri * the needee/wantee/seekee is a variable existentially quantified within the x2 clause --And.