sedu'u and ko

[.iocikun.juj.]

coi

I have a question.
If the man said to the woman: "do cusku sedu'u mi prami do"
First "do" is the woman, but which is second "do", the man or the woman?
The man loves the woman or the woman loves the man?

And,  does "do cusku sedu'u ko prami" tell "Please say" or "Please love"?
In CLL Chapter 7, example 2.6 "mi viska le prenu poi prami ko" tells "Please show."
But can "sedu'u" bridi be interpreted like "poi" bridi.

I want to know what "mi", "do", "ko" and so on mean in "sedu'u" bridi and "du'u" bridi.

Please help me.
Thank you.

mu'o

[Jacob Errington]

coi iocikun ui

First off, {sedu'u} and its friends like {nu} produce a selbri, so you need to use {lo} like this: {lo sedu'u broda}.

As for the main question about the referents of the sumti inside sedu'u, they refer to things outside the sedu'u, if you know what I mean. In particular, in your example, the second do refers to the woman, because she is the one being talked to.

As for {ko}, in current usage {ko} binds to the bridi in which it appears, making the command apply only to that bridi.

mu'o

--
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/-/tNjlAG8IEs8J.
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.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday 06 August 2012 22:37:34 .iocikun.juj. wrote:
> coi
>
> I have a question.
> If the man said to the woman: "do cusku sedu'u mi prami do"
> First "do" is the woman, but which is second "do", the man or the woman?
> The man loves the woman or the woman loves the man?

"do cusku sedu'u mi prami do" means "You are a said expression of me loving
you". I think you mean "do cusku lo sedu'u mi prami do". The second "do"
refers to the same person as the first "do". It would be otherwise if you had
said "do cusku lu mi prami do li'u".

> And, does "do cusku sedu'u ko prami" tell "Please say" or "Please love"?
> In CLL Chapter 7, example 2.6 "mi viska le prenu poi prami ko" tells
> "Please show."
> But can "sedu'u" bridi be interpreted like "poi" bridi.

"mi viska le prenu poi prami ko" can mean either "Let me see the person who
loves you" or "Be loved by the person I see". "do cusku lo sedu'u ko prami"
is not a command; it is an assertion that someone is saying a command to
himself. I don't know a language with a true first-person imperative, so I
don't know how to say it.

Pierre
--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

[Luke Bergen]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

I think you mean "do cusku lo sedu'u mi prami do". The second "do"

refers to the same person as the first "do". It would be otherwise if you had
said "do cusku lu mi prami do li'u".

Pierre
--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

 Is that true?  If it were "lo du'u mi prami do" it would be true for sure.  But isn't "sedu'u" the text which expresses the bridi x1?

sedu'u has always kind of confused me.  It's not a bridi, it's a "text expressing [bridi] which is x2", but not the kind of "text" that you get with lu li'u?

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday 06 August 2012 23:51:58 Luke Bergen wrote:
> Is that true? If it were "lo du'u mi prami do" it would be true for sure.
> But isn't "sedu'u" the text which expresses the bridi x1?
>
> sedu'u has always kind of confused me. It's not a bridi, it's a "text
> expressing [bridi] which is x2", but not the kind of "text" that you get
> with lu li'u?

"do cusku lo sedu'u mi prami do" is equivalent to "do cusku lu do prami mi
li'u" (except that in the first case it could have been said in Greek or
Ithkuil or anything else).

Pierre

--
Jews use a lunisolar calendar; Muslims use a solely lunar calendar.

[ianek]

Definition of {du'u}:
x1 is predication [bridi] expressed in sentence x2

So {se} works not directly on {du'u}, but on {du'u broda}, wich means
'x1 is a fact of broda expressed in sentence x2'. Then {lo du'u broda}
means 'a fact of broda' and {lo se du'u} means 'a sentence expressing
a fact of broda'.

mu'o mi'e ianek

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:49 PM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Definition of {du'u}:
x1 is predication [bridi] expressed in sentence x2

So {se} works not directly on {du'u}, but on {du'u broda}, wich means
'x1 is a fact of broda expressed in sentence x2'. Then {lo du'u broda}
means 'a fact of broda' and {lo se du'u} means 'a sentence expressing
a fact of broda'.

No. [se} works directly on {du'u}. sedu'u

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 7 Sie, 06:02, Pierre Abbat <p...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2012 23:51:58 Luke Bergen wrote:
>
> >  Is that true?  If it were "lo du'u mi prami do" it would be true for sure.
> >  But isn't "sedu'u" the text which expresses the bridi x1?
>
> > sedu'u has always kind of confused me.  It's not a bridi, it's a "text
> > expressing [bridi] which is x2", but not the kind of "text" that you get
> > with lu li'u?
>
> "do cusku lo sedu'u mi prami do" is equivalent to "do cusku lu do prami mi
> li'u" (except that in the first case it could have been said in Greek or
> Ithkuil or anything else).
>
> Pierre
>
> --
> Jews use a lunisolar calendar; Muslims use a solely lunar calendar.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

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.

--
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 )

[ianek]

"cmavo clusters" in jbovlaste are somewhat messy, from what I've seen.
http://camxes.lojban.org/camxes/?text=se+du%27u+broda

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 7 Sie, 08:02, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:49 PM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Definition of {du'u}:
> > x1 is predication [bridi] expressed in sentence x2
>
> > So {se} works not directly on {du'u}, but on {du'u broda}, wich means
> > 'x1 is a fact of broda expressed in sentence x2'. Then {lo du'u broda}
> > means 'a fact of broda' and {lo se du'u} means 'a sentence expressing
> > a fact of broda'.
>
> No. [se} works directly on {du'u}.

> sedu'u<http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/sedu%27u>

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:15 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

"cmavo clusters" in jbovlaste are somewhat messy, from what I've seen.
http://camxes.lojban.org/camxes/?text=se+du%27u+broda

The {se} still acts on {du'u}, not {du'u broda}.

Whatever comes after a NU, until the {kei} (elided or not), is "eaten" by the NU.

So {[zo'e] du'u broda [kei] [zo'e]} means "x1 is predication "broda" expressed in sentence x2".

{se} merely switches the x1 and x2 of {du'u}.

So, for example:

du'u mi nelci lo blanu kei zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy

and

.i zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy se du'u mi nelci lo blanu

are equivalent.

You may want to read http://dag.github.com/cll/11/7/
 

[ianek]

You basically confirmed what I was saying, but you formally disagreed
with me. I don't understand. {se} acts on selbri, BAI, JA and some
other things, but not on NU. It acts on selbri built with NU, just
like in your examples.

On 7 Sie, 09:47, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:15 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "cmavo clusters" in jbovlaste are somewhat messy, from what I've seen.
> >http://camxes.lojban.org/camxes/?text=se+du%27u+broda
>
> The {se} still acts on {du'u}, not {du'u broda}.
>
> Whatever comes after a NU, until the {kei} (elided or not), is "eaten" by
> the NU.
>
> So {[zo'e] du'u broda [kei] [zo'e]} means "x1 is predication "broda"
> expressed in sentence x2".
>
> {se} merely switches the x1 and x2 of {du'u}.

It's easier pe'i to see it as switching x1 and x2 of {du'u broda},
because places are primarily property of selbri, not abstraction
markers.

> So, for example:
>
> du'u mi nelci lo blanu kei zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy
>
> and
>
> .i zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy se du'u mi nelci lo blanu
>
> are equivalent.

Yes, and how it proves me wrong? I know all that, of course. {du'u mi
nelci lo blanu kei} is a selbri with two places and can be converted
with se. Why do we need to assume that SE act on NU if such assumption
is not needed to explain the grammar?

> You may want to read http://dag.github.com/cll/11/7/

I love how you still treat me as a complete co'a cilre.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:50 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

You basically confirmed what I was saying, but you formally disagreed
with me. I don't understand. {se} acts on selbri, BAI, JA and some
other things, but not on NU. It acts on selbri built with NU, just
like in your examples.

{se} acts on /anything/ with an x2. {du'u} is a NU which has an x2.
 

On 7 Sie, 09:47, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:15 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "cmavo clusters" in jbovlaste are somewhat messy, from what I've seen.
> >http://camxes.lojban.org/camxes/?text=se+du%27u+broda
>
> The {se} still acts on {du'u}, not {du'u broda}.
>
> Whatever comes after a NU, until the {kei} (elided or not), is "eaten" by
> the NU.
>
> So {[zo'e] du'u broda [kei] [zo'e]} means "x1 is predication "broda"
> expressed in sentence x2".
>
> {se} merely switches the x1 and x2 of {du'u}.

It's easier pe'i to see it as switching x1 and x2 of {du'u broda},
because places are primarily property of selbri, not abstraction
markers.

Abstraction markers /are/ selbri. That's why they have places.
 

> So, for example:
>
> du'u mi nelci lo blanu kei zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy
>
> and
>
> .i zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy se du'u mi nelci lo blanu
>
> are equivalent.

Yes, and how it proves me wrong? I know all that, of course. {du'u mi
nelci lo blanu kei} is a selbri with two places and can be converted
with se. Why do we need to assume that SE act on NU if such assumption
is not needed to explain the grammar?

Because it's not an assumption. It's a fact.
 

> You may want to read http://dag.github.com/cll/11/7/

I love how you still treat me as a complete co'a cilre.

No, I treat you like some who apparently needs to read the relevant section of the official text on our language.
 

[selpa'i]

Am 07.08.2012 20:47, schrieb Jonathan Jones:

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:50 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

You basically confirmed what I was saying, but you formally disagreed
with me. I don't understand. {se} acts on selbri, BAI, JA and some
other things, but not on NU. It acts on selbri built with NU, just
like in your examples.

{se} acts on /anything/ with an x2. {du'u} is a NU which has an x2.

No. Despite the wording the CLL uses, a NU itself has no places at all.

 

On 7 Sie, 09:47, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:15 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "cmavo clusters" in jbovlaste are somewhat messy, from what I've seen.
> >http://camxes.lojban.org/camxes/?text=se+du%27u+broda
>
> The {se} still acts on {du'u}, not {du'u broda}.

No, it doesn't. SE want to act on selbri (among other things like connectives and TAGs), but NU are *not* selbri. If they were, you could say *{ko'a du'u} or *{lo du'u ku}, but you can't.

>
> Whatever comes after a NU, until the {kei} (elided or not), is "eaten" by
> the NU.
>
> So {[zo'e] du'u broda [kei] [zo'e]} means "x1 is predication "broda"
> expressed in sentence x2".
>
> {se} merely switches the x1 and x2 of {du'u}.

It's easier pe'i to see it as switching x1 and x2 of {du'u broda},
because places are primarily property of selbri, not abstraction
markers.

Abstraction markers /are/ selbri. That's why they have places.

Abstractions are selbri. abstractors (which you call "abstraction markers") are not. They do not have places. All that a NU does is *convert*. It converts a bridi into a selbri. Then you can apply SE on that selbri. The selbri which was created by the NU, *that* has a place structure, depending on the NU used.

 

> So, for example:
>
> du'u mi nelci lo blanu kei zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy
>
> and
>
> .i zoi gy. I like Blue. .gy se du'u mi nelci lo blanu
>
> are equivalent.

Yes, and how it proves me wrong? I know all that, of course. {du'u mi
nelci lo blanu kei} is a selbri with two places and can be converted
with se. Why do we need to assume that SE act on NU if such assumption
is not needed to explain the grammar?

Because it's not an assumption. It's a fact.

No, it's not.

 

> You may want to read http://dag.github.com/cll/11/7/

I love how you still treat me as a complete co'a cilre.

No, I treat you like some who apparently needs to read the relevant section of the official text on our language.

No comment.

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

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:

Am 07.08.2012 20:47, schrieb Jonathan Jones:

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:50 AM, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

You basically confirmed what I was saying, but you formally disagreed
with me. I don't understand. {se} acts on selbri, BAI, JA and some
other things, but not on NU. It acts on selbri built with NU, just
like in your examples.

{se} acts on /anything/ with an x2. {du'u} is a NU which has an x2.

No. Despite the wording the CLL uses, a NU itself has no places at all.

Really? Then why do they ALL have place tags in their definition?

du'u

abstractor: predication/bridi abstractor; x₁ is predication [bridi] expressed in sentence x₂.

jei

abstractor: truth-value abstractor; x₁ is truth value of [bridi] under epistemology x₂.

ka

abstractor: property/quality abstractor (-ness); x₁ is quality/property exhibited by [bridi].

li'i

abstractor: experience abstractor; x₁ is x₂'s experience of [bridi] (participant or observer).

ni

abstractor: quantity/amount abstractor; x₁ is quantity/amount of [bridi] measured on scale x₂.

nu

abstractor: generalized event abstractor; x₁ is state/process/achievement/activity of [bridi].

si'o

abstractor: idea/concept abstractor; x₁ is x₂'s concept of [bridi].

su'u

abstractor: generalized abstractor (how); x₁ is [bridi] as a non-specific abstraction of type x₂.

mu'e

abstractor: achievement (event) abstractor; x₁ is the event-as-a-point/achievement of [bridi].

pu'u

abstractor: process (event) abstractor; x₁ is process of [bridi] proceeding in stages x₂.

za'i

abstractor: state (event) abstractor; x₁ is continuous state of [bridi] being true.

zu'o

abstractor: activity (event) abstractor; x₁ is abstract activity of [bridi] composed of x₂.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
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.

[Efrain Caro]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really? Then why do they ALL have place tags in their definition?
>
> du'u abstractor: predication/bridi abstractor; x1 is predication [bridi]
> expressed in sentence x2.

Jonathan, you are obviously a more knowledgeable person on matters of
Lojban than myself; so pardon me whether I'm asking a stupid question.

I want to ask why those definitions contain *[bridi]* in their
definitions. By themselves, I assume they don't. I must assume thus
that the definition refers to a complete abstraction and not the
abstractor by itself. How am I wrong? Does any abstractor form an
abstraction all by itself? If so, what {lo se du'u kei} would mean?
Does it mean {lo se du'u co'e kei}? Or is it illegal?

Please, explain.

mu'o mi'e betsemes

[Jacob Errington]

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
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.

NU produces a selbri and a selbri contains by definition a place structure. However, NU *by themselves* don't have a place structure. The selbri that they produce does. The distinction is subtle, but it does exist. Therefore, SE do not apply to NU proper. They apply to selbri (and connectives and tags).

NU cannot be empty: the parse *will* fail. That is to say that {lo du'u kei} is not grammatical.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

[ianek]

Another argument: NU clauses, according to formal grammar, can be
joined with connectives. So {nu je du'u broda} is correct. On the
other hand {nu je se du'u broda} is not. Of course {se nu je du'u
broda} is perfectly grammatical (with undefined meaning), because {se}
acts on the abstraction.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 8 Sie, 20:45, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 August 2012 07:20, Efrain Caro <betse...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jonathan Jones]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Efrain Caro <bets...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really? Then why do they ALL have place tags in their definition?
>
> du'u abstractor: predication/bridi abstractor; x1 is predication [bridi]
> expressed in sentence x2.

Jonathan, you are obviously a more knowledgeable person on matters of
Lojban than myself; so pardon me whether I'm asking a stupid question.

I want to ask why those definitions contain *[bridi]* in their
definitions.

Because NU eat bridi for breakfast.

For example, {nu mi citka} is "x₁ is state/process/achievement/activity of [I eat]."
 

By themselves, I assume they don't. I must assume thus
that the definition refers to a complete abstraction and not the
abstractor by itself.

It refers to the NU by itself, but the grammar of NU require that a bridi is between NU...[kei]. The grammar has nothing to do with the definition.
 

How am I wrong? Does any abstractor form an
abstraction all by itself?

No.
 

If so, what {lo se du'u kei} would mean?
Does it mean {lo se du'u co'e kei}?

No, but I for one think it'd be nice if it did.
 

Or is it illegal?

Yes.
 

Please, explain.

mu'o mi'e betsemes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
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.

[Efrain Caro]

Jonathan,
I think I get your point. I personally don't share it, that's not how
I understood NU, but in the end it is a non-issue; the end result is
the same. What really matters is that in the case of NU, the {se}
applies to abstractions, not to stand alone abstractors.