I’m now trying to learn abstractions (not as easy as I thought) an I can’t see the differences between “mi gleki lo nu tavla do” and “mi gleki lo ka tavla do.” For me they are the same. Do you agree?
I’m now trying to learn abstractions (not as easy as I thought) an I can’t see the differences between “mi gleki lo nu tavla do” and “mi gleki lo ka tavla do.” For me they are the same. Do you agree?
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
One reason why {lo ka} even crops up in these places is that people try
to avoid having to repeating sumti, the {ka} is supposed to auto-insert
the sumti for them, but this causes problems when using {ka} in places
where you don't want the {ce'u} to be "filled", where you don't want the
{ka}-property to be applied to any outside sumti. {nelci} is such an
example. {mi nelci lo ka limna} could mean "I like the property of
swimming", "I like swimmingness", without any indication or claim that
the speaker is swimming.
"I like the property of
swimming", "I like swimmingness"
It is easier and
cleaner for a language like Lojban to split the two meanings into two
separate brivla, one that uses {nu} and one that uses {ka}.
la zipcpi cu cusku di'e
> It is easier and
> cleaner for a language like Lojban to split the two meanings into two
> separate brivla, one that uses {nu} and one that uses {ka}.
>
> Yes, I have seen {kaidji} and made {kaitcu} as well,
(I already use nitcu2 as a property)
> but I'm not sure
> this is a sustainable route; we'd then need new brivla for every brivla
> where a {ka} belonging to x1 is useful as a substitution of {nu}, such
> as {gleki}, {nelci}, etc...
Would we really, though? Is it necessary to have ka-variants of
everything? Would you, hypothetically, use {mi sruma lo ka ce'u bilma}
for "I assume [myself] to be sick"? Or what about {mi kanpe lo ka ce'u
ba jinga}? Would it be too much to say {mi kanpe lo nu mi ba jinga}?
The {ce'u} actually doesn't save us that much trouble compared to using
one of the usual back-referencing mechanisms. Logically speaking, the
reason why {ka} is used in places like nitcu2 or troci2 is not in order
to not have to repeat the x1, but because it avoids sumti raising and
makes the predicates much easier to interpret and define.
It is
primarily a semantic concern, not one of convenience; convenience is
only a lucky by-product of it.