ka'e/kakne & mapti/sarxe
Jacob Errington
rden...@gmail.com
> For starters, what is the meaning of a kakne where kakne1 doesn't appear in the kakne2 event?
> {i mi kakne lo nu do citka ci lo plise} -- "I am capable of you eating three apples?"
Personally, but I might be very wrong, I interpret {ko'a kakne lo nu broda} to mean that {ko'a} is able to make {lo nu broda} true (regardless of whether {ko'a} will make it really true or not).
{mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} -> "I'm able to make you eat an apple"
I made it as a parallel to {gasnu}:
{mi gasnu lo nu do citka lo plise} -> "I make you eat an apple"
Again, I might be wrong. I guess I'll find out soon.
remod
Jacob Errington
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
la .lindar.
Remo Dentato
> I disagree with your interpretation. It's just nonsense. It obeys laws of
> grammar, but it's semantically useless.
You're always enlightening, lindar :)
The point is that what is grammatically correct, may or may not make
sense: it is a "speaker" responsibility to be as clear as possible and
it is a "listener" responsibility to try to understand what the
speaker says.
I personally prefer to have an interpretation for {ko'a kakne lo nu
ko'e broda} just saying that is a "non sense" doesn't seem to do any
good to anyone.
remod
Luke Bergen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
Jorge Llambías
> It definitely falls under the category of "ok, I see what you're trying to
> get at". I'd hear "mi kakne lo nu do citka" similar to a kid saying "I want
> to candy". Cutely wrong, but I get what they're trying for. I'd probably
> correct them (though not by raging that "no, that doesn't make sense, I
> don't understand what you're even trying to say").
But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by you"?
mi kakne lo nu [mi] citka
mi kakne lo nu do citka [mi]
mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise [gau mi]
"kakne" requires its x1 to be a part of the event in x2, usually an
agent in x2, but there is no rule that the x1 has to be explicitly
repeated in x2, in fact it is common to leave it out. So I'm not sure
there's anything that needs correcting.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
rden...@gmail.com
> I'd hear "mi kakne lo nu do citka" similar to a kid saying "I want to candy".
On the other hand, I know English is very flexible and you can make verbs from almost anything. When I first read the sentence "three awesomely slick junior partners Leared into YVR a day later", I had trouble recognizing that it meant that they arrived with a (private) Lear Jet, but then I thought it was a very good way to say it (and I like William Gibson, anyway).
I would prefer to have a semantic meaning for as many grammatically correct sentences as possible. I don't see who benefits from having a lot of ways to say "nonsense".
It would just require a small change to the gloss. From:
x1 is able to do/be/capable of doing/being x2 (event/state) under conditions x3 (event/state).
to:
x1 is able to do/be/cause/capable of doing/being/cause x2 (event/state) under conditions x3 (event/state).
remod
Remo Dentato
> But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by you"?
>
> mi kakne lo nu [mi] citka
> mi kakne lo nu do citka [mi]
> mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise [gau mi]
I must confess it wouldn't be obvious for me, but this is an
interepretation I can buy in.
It would be that kakne1 is to be replaced to the first unspecified
sumti of the abstraction kakne2.
I would still prefer mine, but if this is the intereptetation that the
majority would get, I'll be happy to adopt it.
Any rule is better than nonsense!
remod
Jorge Llambías
> 2012/2/20 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:
>> But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by you"?
>>
>> mi kakne lo nu [mi] citka
>> mi kakne lo nu do citka [mi]
>> mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise [gau mi]
>
> I must confess it wouldn't be obvious for me, but this is an
> interepretation I can buy in.
>
> It would be that kakne1 is to be replaced to the first unspecified
> sumti of the abstraction kakne2.
That's not what I'm suggesting though. All I'm saying is that kakne1
is, by the meaning of kakne, involved in some way in the event kakne2,
but what this involvement is need not always be made explicit, since
it is grammatical to omit arguments from a bridi. The first
unspecified sumti is a reasonable choice, as long as it makes sense.
If the first unspecified sumti slot could not take a person, it
wouldn't make much sense to interpret the implicit "mi" as filling
that slot. It is context that dictates what fills the unfilled slots.
Felipe Gonçalves Assis
By the way, this inherent participation of kakne1 in kakne2 is something
I always felt that should be reflected by the grammar of the sentence
(as it is in English). Something like
{mi kakne lo nu do citka [ce'u]}.
I agree that this is odd and far-fetched. But it also reminds me of
example 11-4.4 in CLL:
{le ka do xunre cu cnino mi},
which I guess we all reject nowadays.
More concretely, I'd really like to have a concise way of saying
"I can love you but you can't (love yourself)"
A traditional translation I believe to work is
{mi .enai do kakne lo nu lo no'a cu prami do}
(does it?), but it involves too much magic anyway.
What do you think?
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
Remo Dentato
> It is context that dictates what fills the unfilled slots.
This would not cover the case {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise}. You
had to use [gau mi} to add a "slot" that would be meaningful.
Anyway. I'm fine with that, either. What do the others think?
Remo Dentato
{ko'a kakne lo nu broda}
is that {ko'a} is such that {lo nu broda} can be true (regardless if
it will eventually become true or not).
So {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} (to me) means that I'm able to
have you eating an apple. Either because I bought it for you, or
because I shoved it down to your throat, or I threatened you that you
won't go outside playing with your friends if you don't finish that
damned apple.
This seems (to me) the most logical interpretation to assign to {kakne}.
If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I will support
the interpretation from xorxes.
If nobody cares enough for one or the other, I suspect we'll leave it
undetermined as it is now.
remod
Pierre Abbat
> So {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} (to me) means that I'm able to
> have you eating an apple. Either because I bought it for you, or
> because I shoved it down to your throat, or I threatened you that you
> won't go outside playing with your friends if you don't finish that
> damned apple.
>
> This seems (to me) the most logical interpretation to assign to {kakne}.
>
> If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I will support
> the interpretation from xorxes.
>
> If nobody cares enough for one or the other, I suspect we'll leave it
> undetermined as it is now.
English, Spanish, and Italian all have infinitives and use them in this
construction, implying that the person who can is the same person who eats an
apple; but some languages have no infinitive or have quit using it. Modern
Greek regularly uses "να" and a finite verb. So what does "Μπορώ να φάγης μήλο"
mean?
Pierre
--
sei do'anai mi'a djuno puze'e noroi nalselganse srera
Jorge Llambías
>
> By the way, this inherent participation of kakne1 in kakne2 is something
> I always felt that should be reflected by the grammar of the sentence
> (as it is in English). Something like
> {mi kakne lo nu do citka [ce'u]}.
Other predicates like "kakne" in this respect are zukte, troci, snada,
fliba, sisti, zifre, bilga, fuzme, gunka, lazni, tatpi, surla, srera,
darsi, virnu, bebna, stati, tarti, certu, sutra, masno, frati, lifri,
bredi, rivbi, zajba, cinse, kamni.
Jorge Llambías
>
> So {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} (to me) means that I'm able to
> have you eating an apple. Either because I bought it for you, or
> because I shoved it down to your throat, or I threatened you that you
> won't go outside playing with your friends if you don't finish that
> damned apple.
So basically "mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise [do'e mi]".
> This seems (to me) the most logical interpretation to assign to {kakne}.
>
> If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I will support
> the interpretation from xorxes.
I don't see our interpretations as being different.
rden...@gmail.com
> I don't see our interpretations as being different.
(Sorry for not having understood you fully)
remod
Felipe Gonçalves Assis
But there is a difference here, xorxes. Remember the sentence
{mi kakne lo nu do citka},
which you would likely interpret as
{mi kakne lo nu do citka mi},
while Pierre, who believes that kakne1 need not be a part of the clause
in kakne2, even elliptically, would read it as what you write as
{mi kakne lo nu do citka do'e mi}.
Personally, I think that Pierre's reading is more in line with the grammar.
At the same time, I really wish we used infinitives ({nu} + {ce'u}).
The fact that
{mi kakne lo nu dansu},
is interpreted by some people as
"There is dancing if I want.",
thus leaving the sentence open to mean
"I have a gnome in my house that dances whenever I wish.",
really sucks.
On 21 February 2012 08:28, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> English, Spanish, and Italian all have infinitives and use them in this
> construction, implying that the person who can is the same person who eats an
> apple; but some languages have no infinitive or have quit using it. Modern
> Greek regularly uses "να" and a finite verb. So what does "Μπορώ να φάγης μήλο"
> mean?
Pierre, can you confirm whether that sentence is usually considered a
grammatical
mistake (like mismatching the case/number of an article with its
nouns') or actually
corresponds to your reading of {mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise}?
Jorge Llambías
> On 21 February 2012 12:46, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Remo Dentato <rden...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I will support
>>> the interpretation from xorxes.
>>
>> I don't see our interpretations as being different.
>
> But there is a difference here, xorxes. Remember the sentence
> {mi kakne lo nu do citka},
(which is equivalent to "mi kakne lo nu se citka do")
> which you would likely interpret as
> {mi kakne lo nu do citka mi},
> while Pierre, who believes that kakne1 need not be a part of the clause
> in kakne2, even elliptically, would read it as what you write as
> {mi kakne lo nu do citka do'e mi}.
(You meant remod, not Pierre, right?) I can get that reading too.
That's as general (and vague) as it can get.
> Personally, I think that Pierre's reading is more in line with the grammar.
> At the same time, I really wish we used infinitives ({nu} + {ce'u}).
Some people do use them like that. Personally, I'm undecided, but
since "ce'u" is almost always elided anyway, I don't have much of a
problem with it. It could potentially cause trouble when you have
complex sentences involving both properties and events, for example,
here's one from Alice:
ni'o «lu xu do nelci la noltruni'u —sei la mlatu cu lauble voksa cusku— li'u»
ni'o «lu na sai go'i —sei la .alis. cu cusku— .i ny mutce .y li'u» .i
ca ku .abu sanji lo nu la noltruni'u cu jibni trixe .abu gi'e tirna .i
se ki'u bo di'a cusku «lu lo ka lakne fa lo nu ce'u jinga .i se ki'u
bo na vamji lo temci fa lo nu mo'u kelci li'u»
> The fact that
> {mi kakne lo nu dansu},
> is interpreted by some people as
> "There is dancing if I want.",
I think almost everybody would interpret it as "mi kakne lo nu
[mi/ce'u] dansu".
> thus leaving the sentence open to mean
> "I have a gnome in my house that dances whenever I wish.",
> really sucks.
But the alternative (forbidding any kind of ellision) sucks even more.
Felipe Gonçalves Assis
> 2012/2/21 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipe...@gmail.com>:
>> On 21 February 2012 12:46, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Remo Dentato <rden...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If nobody things that my interpretation is acceptable, I will support
>>>> the interpretation from xorxes.
>>>
>>> I don't see our interpretations as being different.
>>
>> But there is a difference here, xorxes. Remember the sentence
>> {mi kakne lo nu do citka},
>
> (which is equivalent to "mi kakne lo nu se citka do")
>
Yes.
>> which you would likely interpret as
>> {mi kakne lo nu do citka mi},
>> while Pierre, who believes that kakne1 need not be a part of the clause
>> in kakne2, even elliptically, would read it as what you write as
>> {mi kakne lo nu do citka do'e mi}.
>
> (You meant remod, not Pierre, right?) I can get that reading too.
> That's as general (and vague) as it can get.
>
(yeah...) I understand you can get that reading, but the point is that
your view that there is always an ellision happening when x1 is not
mentioned may lead to relevantly different guesses of the intended
meaning of a sentence under a given context. From remod's mail,
I would not say he agrees with
> But wouldn't the obvious interpretation of that be "I can be eaten by you"?
Do you, remod?
>> Personally, I think that Pierre's reading is more in line with the grammar.
>> At the same time, I really wish we used infinitives ({nu} + {ce'u}).
>
> Some people do use them like that. Personally, I'm undecided, but
> since "ce'u" is almost always elided anyway, I don't have much of a
> problem with it. It could potentially cause trouble when you have
> complex sentences involving both properties and events, for example,
> here's one from Alice:
>
> ni'o «lu xu do nelci la noltruni'u —sei la mlatu cu lauble voksa cusku— li'u»
> ni'o «lu na sai go'i —sei la .alis. cu cusku— .i ny mutce .y li'u» .i
> ca ku .abu sanji lo nu la noltruni'u cu jibni trixe .abu gi'e tirna .i
> se ki'u bo di'a cusku «lu lo ka lakne fa lo nu ce'u jinga .i se ki'u
> bo na vamji lo temci fa lo nu mo'u kelci li'u»
>
If I understand correctly, the only reasonable interpretation is the one in
which the {ce'u} is attached to the {ka}, since lakne1 is not an infinitive.
In order to get that interpretation without looking at the definition
of {lakne},
are you assuming that {ce'u} is never attached to {nu}, as with {du'u}?
Anyway, the means to disambiguate to which of nested abstractors a
{ce'u} corresponds is something that needs to be formally agreed upon,
and to that matter it is essential to decide whether {nu} counts. What
is the status of that?
>> The fact that
>> {mi kakne lo nu dansu},
>> is interpreted by some people as
>> "There is dancing if I want.",
>
> I think almost everybody would interpret it as "mi kakne lo nu
> [mi/ce'u] dansu".
>
>> thus leaving the sentence open to mean
>> "I have a gnome in my house that dances whenever I wish.",
>> really sucks.
>
> But the alternative (forbidding any kind of ellision) sucks even more.
>
But the alternative _is_ to agree that there is an elision happening.
Accepting that the x1 need not be directly referenced in kakne2
is what forbids you to elide without blurring the meaning.
Jacob Errington
Felipe Gonçalves Assis
is quite neat. But I would take a step back before generalizing it to the other
(te) gismu mentioned by xorxes.
To me, the key point is whether we are talking about some specific event or
just about some kind of event.
Take {snada} for example. snada2 only refers to a general, abstract state of
affairs, as "being king", or "taking a beautiful picture", so it is
enough to give
a property that x1 tries to attain. On the other hand, snada3 is clearly a
specific event, which results in a realisation of snada2.
Not having analysed every case, I can safely agree that at least kakne2, snada2
and places like "by method" should be filled by properties. {tadji} is
an interesting
case in which abstract properties seem to be the best fit for the x1,
x2 and x3, but
there is no specific sumti to which these properties are applied in
the definition,
suggesting that the original remark that kakne1 has an inherent participation
in kakne2 is completely orthogonal to the point.
ta'onai
ki'esai tsani do ckaji lo na se kakne be mi
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
Michael Turniansky
me when I say those words). And I do internally interpret nu
abstractions as having a (possibly elided) ce'u in them (in other
words, since they are in the same selma'o as ka, I don't see any
reason to treat one different than the other in the "parts" they
contain) and since additional arguments that have no defined place are
implicitly attached with do'e, if the x1 is not in the abstracted
bridi with completely-filled places, it is attached as do'e x1,
otherwise (if not all places are filled)in the first available place
that makes sense)
--gejyspa
2012/2/21 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipe...@gmail.com>:
Felipe Gonçalves Assis
> And I do internally interpret nu
> abstractions as having a (possibly elided) ce'u in them (in other
> words, since they are in the same selma'o as ka, I don't see any
> reason to treat one different than the other in the "parts" they
> contain)
They are also in the same selma'o as {du'u}. There is no implicit
or explicit {ce'u} in du'u-clauses.
Pierre Abbat
> On 2 March 2012 14:48, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And I do internally interpret nu
> > abstractions as having a (possibly elided) ce'u in them (in other
> > words, since they are in the same selma'o as ka, I don't see any
> > reason to treat one different than the other in the "parts" they
> > contain)
>
> They are also in the same selma'o as {du'u}. There is no implicit
> or explicit {ce'u} in du'u-clauses.
Being in the same selma'o means only that, if you have a syntactically valid
sentence with "du'u" in it, you can substitute "nu" for "du'u" and get a
syntactically valid sentence, and vice versa. It doesn't imply anything about
implicit "ce'u". Similarly, "zi'o" is in the same selma'o as "ko'a", but
"zi'o" does not have a referent; and "du" and "co'e" are in the same selma'o
as "go'i", but it makes no sense to use "ra'o" with them. A sentence can be
syntactically valid yet uninterpretable. le mlatu pe naku goi zi'o cu co'e
ra'o lo cipni te.u lo ratcu.