Re: [lojban-beginners] lo nu pilno zo kakne ce'onai lo sucta

[selpa'i]

Am 11.07.2012 19:50, schrieb jammya...@gmail.com:
> le munvelski be zo kakne du la'e zoi gy x1 is able to do/be/capable of
> doing/being x2 (event/state) under conditions x3 (event/state) gy .i
> xu zoi gy being gy nibyti'i lo du'u zo kakne kakne lo selpli secau zo
> nu to noi simsa nunpli fi tu'a le vi jufra toi
>
> The description of "kakne" is "x1 is able to do/be/capable of
> doing/being x2 (event/state) under conditions x3 (event/state)". Does
> "being" imply that "kakne" can be used without "nu" after it, and
> instead using a simple sumti (as I did above).
>
> Probably a simpler example is {mi kakne lo tavla be fo la lojban.} -
> "I can-be a talker in-language Lojban" .i xu di'u xagytadji lo nu
> pilno zo kakne

It says "do/be" because those two are the same thing in Lojban. There is
no to be or to do. That is, there is no difference between "I am a man"
{mi nanmu }and "I [do] walk" {mi cadzu}. It's always just an argument
(sumti) filling a place of a predicate (selbri). You still need an
abstraction for kakne. {mi kakne lo ka/nu tavla} means both "I can be a
talker" and "I can talk".

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
.i pau mi me ma .i pa mai ko mi jungau la'e di'u
.i ba bo mi va'o lo nu nelci lo nu me ma kau cu barkla
.i va'o lo nu na nelci cu denpa ti lo nu mi drata

[Jacob Errington]

On 12 July 2012 17:15, <jammya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But that one doesn't say who the talker is. It says "I can (event-of
> unspecified-it talks)". Isn't that a problem?
>

Depends on who you ask, but the general consensus is that the x1 of
kakne *must* find its way into the abstraction of kakne2.
In fact, a previous discussion about the properties of kakne2 led me
(and a handful of others) to believe that kakne2 should be a
ka-abstraction, where the {ce'u} refers to the value of kakne1.

{mi kakne lo ka [ce'u] tavla} "I can talk."

mu'o mi'e la tsani

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/o_YJVA9fUjMJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

[Jacob Errington]

It doesn't require a redefinition because the types of places are not
static. In fact, it's legal, albeit shunned upon, to use concrete
sumti in abstraction places. Regardless, there's no redefinition
required if one wants to use a property place in kakne2.

On 12 July 2012 17:42, mudri <jammya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would that require a redefinition, something like "x1 is able to
> have/exhibit property x2", or would that be legal now?

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/aKgfzKJKY_8J.

[mudri]

It seems sensible; I might start using it.

>> > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.

>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>> > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/aKgfzKJKY_8J.
>

> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.