search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?

[la gleki]

search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?

Which translation is correct?

[Jonathan Jones]

loka gleki

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:11 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?

Which translation is correct?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[v4hn]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:53:36AM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> loka gleki
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:11 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?
> >
> > Which translation is correct?

As a literal translation, both are wrong.
Literally it would have to be {sisku loka [ka gleki/kamgleki]} or even
{sisku loka ka mi gleki}, I suppose.

But I don't think this is what most people would mean by
"searching for happiness". Probably something like
{sisku loka ce'u se gleki vo'a} instead.

Also, at the moment I consider property abstractions with more than one elided
place as ill-formed, because interpreting them creates ambiguity and not just
vagueness in my opinion.

There is this rather new thread on sisku already, on this very topic.
I still intend to reply to this, but didn't find the time until now
to think about this some more...
The question of whether {sisku lo selgleki [be vo'a]} _could_ be interpreted
correctly dives rather deeply into the question how universes of discourse
work in lojban(or anywhere). And people agreed that they do not agree
or don't know as far as I can see.


v4hn

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:53:36AM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> loka gleki
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:11 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?
> >
> > Which translation is correct?

As a literal translation, both are wrong.
Literally it would have to be {sisku loka [ka gleki/kamgleki]} or even
{sisku loka ka mi gleki}, I suppose.

You have too many ka's:

-ness

Appended to adjectives to form nouns meaning "the state of (the adjective)", "the quality of (the adjective)", or "the measure of (the adjective)".

It's the quality of "happy", not the quality of the quality of "happy".
 

But I don't think this is what most people would mean by
"searching for happiness". Probably something like
{sisku loka ce'u se gleki vo'a} instead.

Also, at the moment I consider property abstractions with more than one elided
place as ill-formed, because interpreting them creates ambiguity and not just
vagueness in my opinion.

There is this rather new thread on sisku already, on this very topic.
I still intend to reply to this, but didn't find the time until now
to think about this some more...
The question of whether {sisku lo selgleki [be vo'a]} _could_ be interpreted
correctly dives rather deeply into the question how universes of discourse
work in lojban(or anywhere). And people agreed that they do not agree
or don't know as far as I can see.


v4hn

[v4hn]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 12:41:42PM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:53:36AM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> > > loka gleki
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:11 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?
> > > >
> > > > Which translation is correct?
> >
> > As a literal translation, both are wrong.
> > Literally it would have to be {sisku loka [ka gleki/kamgleki]} or even
> > {sisku loka ka mi gleki}, I suppose.
> >
>
> You have too many ka's:
>

> *-ness*

> Appended to adjectives to form nouns meaning "the state of (the
> adjective)", "the quality of (the adjective)", or "the measure of (the
> adjective)".
>
> It's the quality of "happy", not the quality of the quality of "happy".

partly right.

{sisku} requires a property of the thing you are looking for. So if
you're looking for _a property_, you need to define a property which the
property(happyness) exhibits.

{sisku loka gleki ce'u} means "searching for something which makes someone
happy", whereas {sisku loka ce'u ka ce'u gleki} is supposed to mean
"searching for a thing/property which is a property of someone being happy"
or phrased differently "searching for something that is happyness".


v4hn

[Jacob Errington]

On 9 February 2013 06:11, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?

Which translation is correct?

The second one, but probably not for the reasons you'd think.

{sisku} works like this: the x2 is a predicate that every element in the x3 is matched against; the x1 does the matching, whatever that means. By that logic, the sisku2 is a property of the sisku3, meaning that its ce'u-place refers to an element of sisku3. 

With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to look for properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u}. 

Similarly, if you're looking for a green shirt: {.i mi sisku lo ka ce'u crino kei lo[']i creka} -> "Of the shirts, I search for the green one(s)". 

If we're looking for a particular thing, we have to resort to the use of {me} or {mintu}, depending on the case, in order to introduce a context-dependent variable: {.i mi sisku lo ka ce'u mintu lo crino kei lo[']i creka} -> "Of the shirts, I search for the green one(s)".

I don't know how to reflect the difference in English.

Now that we understand sisku, let's look at the real problem: what does it even mean to search for happiness? This question is philosophical to a ridiculous degree, so your mileage may vary. If it means "to do things that make you happy", then the translation is simply {zukte lo [da'i] selgei}, in which case the concept of "looking for" is completely out of the picture. If it means "to try to be happy about life/experiences", then it is simply {troci lo ka gleki lo selfri}; again, "looking for" is out of the picture.

This leads me to believe that the concept of "searching for immaterial things" doesn't even make sense. However, but assuming it does, does searching for properties that upon having them, you are happy, make you happy? Does searching for something imply that you obtain the sought-after thing? If it does, once you've "found" properties such that having them makes you happy, do you have those properties?

In sum, it seems to me like this is just another thing "that you wouldn't ever really say in Lojban".

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[v4hn]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 06:11, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?
> >
> > Which translation is correct?
> >
>
> The second one, but probably not for the reasons you'd think.
>

> [...]

>
> With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to look for
> properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u}.

Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties?
That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is confusing.


v4hn

[Jacob Errington]

On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 06:11, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > search for happiness. {sisku lo selgleki} or {sisku lo ka selgleki}?
> >
> > Which translation is correct?
> >
>
> The second one, but probably not for the reasons you'd think.
>

> [...]

>
> With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to look for
> properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u}.

Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties?

No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a property of that sumti.

In some cases, this is more obvious than in other cases. What I consider to be the most obvious case is {.i mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise}. Discovering the sheer nonsense of that sentence is what led me to believe that ka-abstractions are of paramount importance in Lojban.

 

That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is confusing. 

It's been said in at least a few other posts, perhaps on this list, perhaps on the main list, that the type restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive. In fact, I've seen jcowan say that these restrictions where added in order to warn against implicit raising, which was, at the time that the list was made, the major concern with regards to abstraction places.

That being said, the gismu list simply tells us that the x2 must be an abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state. I disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature, am entitled to use a ka-abstraction there.

[Jonathan Jones]

It was lojbab that said they were put there to warn against implicit raising.

to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. fonxa toi
mu'o mi'e.aionys.

[v4hn]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:
> > > With this definition, we can easily create a predicate meaning "to look
> > for
> > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u}.
> >
> > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properties?
> >
>
> No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about
> Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an
> abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a property
> of that sumti.

Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rather sure,
it overrides quite some learning material, so you have to deal with
alternative views as well..

> > That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is confusing.
>

> It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the type

> restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not prescriptive.

> That being said, the gismu list simply tells us that the x2 must be an
> abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state. I
> disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature, am
> entitled to use a ka-abstraction there.

Yes, you are. but in {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u} you didn't say that the
{ce'u} place is to be a ka-abstraction. Therefore, this can't just be
translated as "to look for properties that make you happy", because "to look
for events that make you happy" is at least an equally good translation.
"to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be more fitting
for all possible interpretations, I suppose.

Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event
you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectly
valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restrict
the type of abstraction here, necessarily.


v4hn

[Jacob Errington]

I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should have made it more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would have been better overall.

 

Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event
you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectly
valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restrict
the type of abstraction here, necessarily.

Right. That's the downside to this system: it winds up requiring some extra verbosity if you want to use an event that doesn't involve the formal argument. The solution that I made up for this when I first considered a new system for abstractions involved introducing a small exception: lifri2 is a {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li'i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u. When a li'i-abstraction is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place typically finds its way into li'i2, and then all is well.

{.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}.

The major advantage, however, of my abstractions system is that is makes producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of the type -dji, the jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (something I have yet to believe should be a {ka}).

e.g. ctidji = x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4

Saying that there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban definition then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur on the same abstraction-level.

e.g. pampe'o = x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo

Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri, many lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the full structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting rule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}.

Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'e lo plise} -> {.i mi kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}.

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

doi tsani

I see things a bit different. I believe that kakne2 and djica2 should
be abstracts
({ka} and {du'u}), but for their intensionality. gleki2, on the other
hand, is as
concrete an event as it can be, not an abstract property or
proposition. Consider
{mi gleki so'i lo nu mi klama lo zdani be mi}

Also, your
{mi gleki lo ka se li'i do citka lo plise} instead of
{mi gleki lo nu do citka lo plise}
is like
{mi klama lo stuzi be lo zdani be mi} instead of
{mi klama lo zdani be mi}
or
"I saw an image of the sun setting" instead of
"I saw the sun setting",

This extreme typing of sumti places just creates hindrances in
expression without
adding anything to the speaker's or listener's understanding of the
world. I already
know that it is my experience of an event that can bring me happiness about it,
not somebody else's, and that what determines whether someone is tall or short
is his/her body, not his/her friendliness.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[la gleki]

if in some parallel world lojbanists would make djica {ka}-like  then how would they express "I want you to eat an apple"?

{mi djica lo ka viska lo nu do citka lo plise}?

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

Yeah, similarly, I pose that djica2 should be a {du'u}.

[la gleki]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:54:33 PM UTC+4, .asiz. wrote:

Yeah, similarly, I pose that djica2 should be a {du'u}.

Heh, i was talking about tsani's views. As for me zo'u my opinion is that all ma'oi NU are useless except one (we can choose any, e.g. {nu}). So there is no difference between {du'u} or {nu}. Additional meanings can be achieved using ZAhO or other tags or just modifying the internal bridi. {ka} and {ni} shoudl be retained for brevity. {jei} is worth retaining too although few use it.

[Jacob Errington]

On 10 February 2013 14:43, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

doi tsani

I see things a bit different. I believe that kakne2 and djica2 should
be abstracts
({ka} and {du'u}), but for their intensionality. gleki2, on the other
hand, is as
concrete an event as it can be, not an abstract property or
proposition. Consider
  {mi gleki so'i lo nu mi klama lo zdani be mi}

Actually, quantifying over events like that has various problems, namely that the zo'e inside it are magically changing. In Lojban, every event is unique, but as humans we roll them together. 

In reality, what's happening when you quantify over an event like that, you want to make a whole bunch of slightly different events: the event of going home on Monday, and the one of Tuesday, and the one on Wednesday, etc. Each of these events in unique.

It seems like a predicate logic sentence would be best to describe this, and ultimately moves the quantifier scope higher: {.i so'i da zo'u mi gleki lo ka klama lo zdani ca da} "For many X, I am happy to go home at X." This ultimately creates many properties of going home, for each of which it is asserted that the speaker is happy about that.

 

Also, your
  {mi gleki lo ka se li'i do citka lo plise} instead of
  {mi gleki lo nu do citka lo plise}
is like
  {mi klama lo stuzi be lo zdani be mi} instead of
  {mi klama lo zdani be mi}
or
 "I saw an image of the sun setting" instead of
 "I saw the sun setting",

This extreme typing of sumti places just creates hindrances in
expression without
adding anything to the speaker's or listener's understanding of the
world. I already
know that it is my experience of an event that can bring me happiness about it,
not somebody else's, and that what determines whether someone is tall or short
is his/her body, not his/her friendliness.

As I explained, the general benefit of making places infinitive-places with {ka} is to make jvajvo more commonplace. As it stands, we frequently drop "repeated" places that it would be nice to still have. Reconsider my examples of {ctidji}. Using current nu-based djica, there is no way to get both meanings in separate lujvo. Making the lujvo always drops the other one. If we define ctidji with a place merger, we can't recover ctidji without that merger.

ctidji = x1 djica lo nu x1 citka x2 ...

or

ctidji = x1 djica lo nu x2 citka x3 ... ?

Defining one makes the other undefinable, whereas with infinitives, we just have to throw in -fri- to get the other meaning:

ctidji = x1 djica lo ka ce'u citka x2 ... 

and

ctifridji = x1 djica lo ka ce'u lifri lo li'i x2 citka x3 ...

I agree, it creates some boilerplate if you want to say something like "I want you to eat an apple," but there're ways to circumvent this. In fact, I frequently use this tanru trick to avoid using {lo nu} and {lo ka}: {.i mi djica co li'i do broda}. This has the unfortunate disadvantage of making it impossible to assign djica3 (or explicitly assign djica2, although tanru inference tells us that {lo ka se li'i do broda} is djica 2).

Another way to "cheat the system" would be to use sei, assuming sei functions as a bridi relative clause (which I believe is the most sane interpretation of sei and as I see it, breaks no usage whatsoever): {.i sei mi djica do broda [da'i]}. We might need to include {da'i} in some cases, where subjunctives happen implicitly in the nested bridi. In the case of djica2, we usually assume that the djica2 is subjunctive, i.e. is true hypothetically, but not in reality. My example with sei, however, moves the nested bridi onto the top level, pushing the djica-bridi into a relative clause. Strictly speaking, the nested bridi becomes claimed, which is undesirable in the case of djica.

(The choice of li'i and lifri in general for more flexibility in the rigid infinitive system requires that the actual association between the lifri1 and lifri2 possibly be extremely vague, which isn't exactly a problem.)

As for your comparison between {gleki lo ka se li'i broda} and {klama lo stuzi be ko'a} isn't entirely rational. The "speech cost" of {ka se li'i} versus the introduction of a whole other selbri and linked arguments is completely different. {ka se li'i} versus {nu} is only 3 syllables (short syllables with no consonant clusters) longer. (At most four, if you include the extra kei.)  Also, I find it much easier to understand a compound abstractor like this than complex linked arguments. 

Also, stuzi1 and stuzi2 are arguably *the same thing*, which can be troubling. Let's take a look at another selbri for comparison. Although it's experimental, {ditcu} is the best example of this: "x1 is the time-duration of x2." It turns out that both the x1 and x2 are events, because in Lojban, there isn't actually a system for representing quantities, so we use objects (or events) as proxies for their relevant properties. That being said, ditcu simply states an equivalency in the event-bridis' ze'a-tag: {ko'a ko'e go ditcu gi dunli lo ka makau jai ze'a fasnu fai ce'u}. Now to get back to stuzi, does stuzi simply state an equivalency in the objects' bu'u-tag ? {ko'a ko'e go stuzi gi dunli lo ka makau jai bu'u me ko'a} ? I'm not entirely sure. It doesn't really look like it, because that means I get to say things like {.i lo zdani be mi ca stuzi mi}, which shouldn't really make sense. However, that being said, *what* kinds of things can we even *put* in stuzi1 ?

Now, if stuzi1 and stuzi2 are argubly the same thing, then {mi klama lo stuzi be ko'a} and {mi klama ko'a} are also arguably the same thing. However, under my infinitives system, events are not interchangeable with ka-abstractions, and there is no way to define an equivalency as I have in the case of stuzi.

[la gleki]

This really looks like trying to patch flaws. djica2 always implies {da'i}. Several other brivla imply it too.

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

On 12 February 2013 02:00, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 February 2013 14:43, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> doi tsani
>>
>> I see things a bit different. I believe that kakne2 and djica2 should
>> be abstracts
>> ({ka} and {du'u}), but for their intensionality. gleki2, on the other
>> hand, is as
>> concrete an event as it can be, not an abstract property or
>> proposition. Consider
>> {mi gleki so'i lo nu mi klama lo zdani be mi}
>>
>
> Actually, quantifying over events like that has various problems, namely
> that the zo'e inside it are magically changing. In Lojban, every event is
> unique, but as humans we roll them together.
> In reality, what's happening when you quantify over an event like that, you
> want to make a whole bunch of slightly different events: the event of going
> home on Monday, and the one of Tuesday, and the one on Wednesday, etc. Each
> of these events in unique.
> It seems like a predicate logic sentence would be best to describe this, and
> ultimately moves the quantifier scope higher: {.i so'i da zo'u mi gleki lo
> ka klama lo zdani ca da} "For many X, I am happy to go home at X." This
> ultimately creates many properties of going home, for each of which it is
> asserted that the speaker is happy about that.
>

Then you should agree that quantifying over red things is equally
problematic, because each red thing is unique, so that instead of
{mi citka so'i da poi xunre}
we would have something like
{so'i de zo'u mi citka lo xunre be sela'u de}
or, using your idea of space-time,
{so'i de zo'u mi citka lo xunre be bu'u de}

We are used to talking about different sunsets as well as about
different red things. We understand that each sunset is slightly
different from the other, as we understand that each red thing is
slightly different from the other, but that does not stops us from
describing them with a common predicate, as well as counting them. I
see nothing illogical in that.

Anyway, you've made your point that limitedness of expression is not a
problem, but see last paragraph.

{djica} is a different discussion. I too disagree that a {nu}-clause
makes sense in djica2. Your {ko'a djica ko'e} is just my {ko'a djica
lo du'u ko'a ckaji ko'e}, and my {ko'a djica ko'e} is your {ko'a djica
lo ka lifri su'o fasnu be ko'e}.

I just think that, if you accept that wanting people to live in peace
in the next century can be paraphrased as wanting to lifri that, you
have made the definition of {lifri} almost vacuous.

> (The choice of li'i and lifri in general for more flexibility in the rigid
> infinitive system requires that the actual association between the lifri1
> and lifri2 possibly be extremely vague, which isn't exactly a problem.)
>

Yeah, you appear to agree. Don't you find it ugly?

Besides, you don't have to ka-ify djica2 to get jvajvo for the
infinitive interpretations. Dependent places in lujvo is a common
issue that has to be dealt with anyhow, and other more general and
less invasive solutions exist.

If you want {rodydji} to be strictly reserved to {ko'a djica lo du'u
ko'e broda} under the {du'u} definition of {djica}, we could have
{rodydjisi'u} for {ko'a simxu lo ka ce'u djica lo du'u ce'u broda}.

Another option is to be liberal about djica2, allowing both properties
and propositions, and then making the distinction via {kambrodykezdji}
vs {dumbrodykezdji}, which would be even more regular lujvo.

> As for your comparison between {gleki lo ka se li'i broda} and {klama lo
> stuzi be ko'a} isn't entirely rational. The "speech cost" of {ka se li'i}
> versus the introduction of a whole other selbri and linked arguments is
> completely different. {ka se li'i} versus {nu} is only 3 syllables (short
> syllables with no consonant clusters) longer. (At most four, if you include
> the extra kei.) Also, I find it much easier to understand a compound
> abstractor like this than complex linked arguments.

Speech cost is the least. The complexity of the object is the problem.
It is only easy to handle when it is part of a set phrase, such as
{ko'a gleki lo ka se li'i broda}. I made the argument because I
thought you wanted to emphasize the experience as the source of
happyness. Now I see that the experience is for you just a way of
getting an extra place to fit the {ce'u} of an uncalled for property.

> Also, stuzi1 and stuzi2 are arguably *the same thing*, which can be

> troubling...

> Now, if stuzi1 and stuzi2 are argubly the same thing, then {mi klama lo
> stuzi be ko'a} and {mi klama ko'a} are also arguably the same thing.
> However, under my infinitives system, events are not interchangeable with
> ka-abstractions, and there is no way to define an equivalency as I have in
> the case of stuzi.
>

I agree, and hold my point. Besides the counting, I believe events can
also be pointed to, and may fill places for both time and space
(although, like objects that have more clear limits in space than in
time, events usually are more clearly delimited in time rather than in
space).

Here your {ko'a gleki ko'e} is my {ko'a gleki lo nu ko'a ckaji ko'e},
and my {ko'a gleki ko'e} is your {ko'a gleki lo ka lifri ko'e}. The
problem is that you have unnecessarily put an essentially concrete
object (the event) under an intensional scope (the property). Nothing
stops us from doing that as much as we can. For example, we could
define {citka} to mean "x1 eats something with property x2", rendering
{mi citka lo ka plise} instead of {mi citka lo plise}. This would make
the lujvo {plisycti} represent the same structure as {volka'e}, but
that is, I repeat, ugly, and complicates things, not on the
syllable-count level, but on the grammatical one.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now to get back to
> stuzi, does stuzi simply state an equivalency in the objects' bu'u-tag ?
> {ko'a ko'e go stuzi gi dunli lo ka makau jai bu'u me ko'a} ? I'm not
> entirely sure. It doesn't really look like it, because that means I get to
> say things like {.i lo zdani be mi ca stuzi mi}, which shouldn't really make
> sense.

"stuzi" is supposed to be for instrinsic locations, "(se) zvati" being
the one that corresponds to "bu'u".

bu'u = fi'o se zvati
tu'i = fi'o stuzi

Mountains, buildings and plants have stuzi, cars and animals merely
have se zvati.

> However, that being said, *what* kinds of things can we even *put* in
> stuzi1 ?

stuzi1 is probably something that existed before stuzi2 existed and
will probably exist after stuzi2 ceases to exist. Also stuzi1 can
probably be more, but not less extended in space than stuzi2: "la
riodejaneiros ba stuzi la olimpiks pe li 2016" but not "la olimpiks pe
li 2016 ba stuzi la riodejaneiros"

mu'o mi'e xorxes