Why {danfu, preti, spuda...} are in separate gismu?
13 views
Skip to first unread message
gleki
Jul 3, 2012, 5:40:11 AM7/3/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Everyone understands the power of lojban when several sumti are connected within
Currently I don't understand why the concepts of "question" and "answer" are not linked within one gismu.
Currently I don't understand why the concepts of "question" and "answer" are not linked within one gismu.
danfu, preti, spuda... no solution.
danfu - x1 is the answer/response/solution/[reply] to question/problem x2.
preti - x1 (quoted text) is a question/query about subject x2 by questioner x3 to audience x4.
spuda - x1 answers/replies to/responds to person/object/event/situation/stimulus x2 with response x3.
I wish I could express something like
x1 questions someone x2 about x3 getting reply/answer x4
Robin told me that currently we can say "mi spuda le nu do te preti mi le se du'u preti spuda kei kei dei"which isn't exactly compact.
.arpis.
Jul 3, 2012, 7:57:25 AM7/3/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
What about {zi'o preti ko'a ko'e ko'i fi'o danfu ko'o}; it has the right places but in the wrong order.
--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/tm1xn6gV4x4J.
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.
--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.
gleki
Jul 3, 2012, 8:16:37 AM7/3/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 3:57:25 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:
What about {zi'o preti ko'a ko'e ko'i fi'o danfu ko'o}; it has the right places but in the wrong order.
That's right. I pay attention not to the order but to the general idea that parts of a solid phenomenon are usually within the same gismu. Modals and gismu often overlap with other gismu and I can replace sumti places with modals (like the famous "by standard" which has been recently mentioned in this mailing list). So needless to say that I'm comfortable with the current situation with preti/danfu. I just mean that {danfu} can't exist without {preti}, a question previously asked. And I mean that the division of preti and danfu is too naturalistic and probably reflect English semantics.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:40 AM, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone understands the power of lojban when several sumti are connected within
Currently I don't understand why the concepts of "question" and "answer" are not linked within one gismu.danfu, preti, spuda... no solution.danfu - x1 is the answer/response/solution/[reply] to question/problem x2.preti - x1 (quoted text) is a question/query about subject x2 by questioner x3 to audience x4.spuda - x1 answers/replies to/responds to person/object/event/situation/stimulus x2 with response x3.I wish I could express something likex1 questions someone x2 about x3 getting reply/answer x4Robin told me that currently we can say "mi spuda le nu do te preti mi le se du'u preti spuda kei kei dei"which isn't exactly compact.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/tm1xn6gV4x4J.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
Jacob Errington
Jul 3, 2012, 9:03:53 AM7/3/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
The gismu weren't designed not to overlap. In fact, there's quite a
not of overlap, not to mention antonyms that we can otherwise obtain
by using {to'e}. Furthermore, some gismu can even be produced in a
lujvo form, using only other gismu (klama is one such example).
The advantage of having simple gismu for concepts that can otherwise
be encoded using more complex mechanisms is that the focus of the
selbri is different and actually saying it is simple. We can ask this
question in reverse, as well, as "How come we have to say {krafamtei}.
Shouldn't there be a gismu for that, rather than a 3-part lujvo?" I'd
figure that duration is a concept useful and common enough to deserve
a gismu, but of course, that just isn't the way it is, and we deal
with it.
Concretely, {danfu} differs from {preti} in that there're no places
including the persons in question, in {danfu}. It seems like {danfu}
is about the "correct answer" or simply "the answer" to a problem or
question, ignoring who spoke the question or who actually did the
answering, whereas {preti} includes those people, because questions
must necessarily originate from some being(s) smart enough to make
them up.
On the other hand, {spuda} is really the oddball of the gang and is
certainly commonly used in the most awkward fashion. To understand
{spuda}, I think that it's necessary to look at {frati} which most
definitely has the closest place structure, differing only in its
fourth place (an "under conditions" too). In my opinion, the
difference lays only in the volition of the x1. {frati} is just about
a reaction, where {spuda} is just about a response.
Both {frati} and {spuda} involve what amount to "actions" in lojban,
which can be represented with ka, nu, or whatever floats your boat
these days, rather than simple text, not to mention that {danfu} is
probably not limited to text/questions only: {lo ka klama lo zarci cu
danfu lo nu posycau lo ladru}.
In that regard, {danfu} differs from {spuda} only in agentiveness. In
fact, adding an agent place to {danfu} probably results in {spuda}. If
that agent performs the response in a non-volitional manner, then it's
{frati}. As for {preti}, asking questions is probably always a
volitional act, as it requires the mental capabilities that make us
differ from machines or possibly other life forms. Furthermore, where
I can say {.i mi spuda lo li'i claxu lo ka jikca kei kei lo ka penmi
lo pendo} I can't produce anything similar at all using {preti}.
{preti} involves only text or predications {lu .i xu lo me do moi cu
pinsi lo xekri li'u preti lo do pinsi mi do}
mu'o mi'e la tsani
>>> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
not of overlap, not to mention antonyms that we can otherwise obtain
by using {to'e}. Furthermore, some gismu can even be produced in a
lujvo form, using only other gismu (klama is one such example).
The advantage of having simple gismu for concepts that can otherwise
be encoded using more complex mechanisms is that the focus of the
selbri is different and actually saying it is simple. We can ask this
question in reverse, as well, as "How come we have to say {krafamtei}.
Shouldn't there be a gismu for that, rather than a 3-part lujvo?" I'd
figure that duration is a concept useful and common enough to deserve
a gismu, but of course, that just isn't the way it is, and we deal
with it.
Concretely, {danfu} differs from {preti} in that there're no places
including the persons in question, in {danfu}. It seems like {danfu}
is about the "correct answer" or simply "the answer" to a problem or
question, ignoring who spoke the question or who actually did the
answering, whereas {preti} includes those people, because questions
must necessarily originate from some being(s) smart enough to make
them up.
On the other hand, {spuda} is really the oddball of the gang and is
certainly commonly used in the most awkward fashion. To understand
{spuda}, I think that it's necessary to look at {frati} which most
definitely has the closest place structure, differing only in its
fourth place (an "under conditions" too). In my opinion, the
difference lays only in the volition of the x1. {frati} is just about
a reaction, where {spuda} is just about a response.
Both {frati} and {spuda} involve what amount to "actions" in lojban,
which can be represented with ka, nu, or whatever floats your boat
these days, rather than simple text, not to mention that {danfu} is
probably not limited to text/questions only: {lo ka klama lo zarci cu
danfu lo nu posycau lo ladru}.
In that regard, {danfu} differs from {spuda} only in agentiveness. In
fact, adding an agent place to {danfu} probably results in {spuda}. If
that agent performs the response in a non-volitional manner, then it's
{frati}. As for {preti}, asking questions is probably always a
volitional act, as it requires the mental capabilities that make us
differ from machines or possibly other life forms. Furthermore, where
I can say {.i mi spuda lo li'i claxu lo ka jikca kei kei lo ka penmi
lo pendo} I can't produce anything similar at all using {preti}.
{preti} involves only text or predications {lu .i xu lo me do moi cu
pinsi lo xekri li'u preti lo do pinsi mi do}
mu'o mi'e la tsani
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> mu'o mi'e .arpis.
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> mu'o mi'e .arpis.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/yE_Ic2YKHRYJ.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
>
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages