Since the x2 of kakne is an event, the first sentence says you are
capable of some "running event". That is, some event that runs
(whatever that maybe intended to mean), not an event OF running. For
a less confusing contrast:
a)mi kakne lo drata
b)mi kakne lo nu drata
The first says "I am capable of other things". The second second
says "I am capable of being different"
--gejyspa
> --
> 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.
>
>
To clarify a bit (I was heading out the door when I was wrote the
above) -- kakne means "x1 can do an event/state x2 under conditions
x3". X2 IS an event or state, regardless of what it might be. If x2
starts with "lo nu", "lo za'i", etc. then it's essentially superfluous
(other than to clarify if it's an event or a state). But if it
doesn't such as "lo bajra", then it is an event or a state AS WELL AS
being a runner.
I also might not have been very clear what the difference of my a)
and b) above were. So let me give it some context:
a) mi bajra .i mi kakne lo drata (I am capable of a event which is different)
b) mi bajra .i mi kakne lo nu drata. (I am capable of the event of
me being different)
a) I am running. I can do something else (besides running).
b) I am running. I can (also) be something other (than what I am,
presumably, but not necessarily referring to runningness).
--gejyspa
But I don't yet fully comprehend "X2 IS an event or state, regardless
of what it might be. If x2 starts with "lo nu", "lo za'i", etc. then
it's essentially superfluous
(other than to clarify if it's an event or a state). But if it
doesn't such as "lo bajra", then it is an event or a state AS WELL AS
being a runner."
...Part of me feels like, at least when we look at the English
glosses, that the "lo drata/ lo nu drata" example has a readily
apparent semantic difference. To help me understand the generality of
this contrast, what precisely would be semantically different in the
original two cases. It seems to me that the two should be equivalent:
Lojban: { mi kakne lo bajra }
Parse: (x1: I) am capable of (x2 [FORCE-EVENT/STATE: "being a"] runner")
Gloss: "I'm capable of a running event"
English: (I can run)
Lojban: { mi kakne lo nu bajra }
Parse: (x1 I) am capable of (x2 [EXPLICIT-EVENT/STATE: "being a"] runner")
Gloss: "I'm capable of the event of (me?*) running"
English: (I can run)
ki'e .i co'o mi'e korbi
A running event, here, is not an event of running. It is an event that runs.
How an event can run is not clear, so what this sentence means is not clear.
Another example of forcing: The preposition "ti'u" and the tense marker "ca"
force their object to be a time. (There is a semantic difference between them
which isn't relevant to forcing.) For example:
le nunpenmi be ti'u li vo pe le vanci cu fasnu ku'i ca le solnuncanci
The meeting set for four in the afternoon happened instead at sunset.
"ca le solnuncanci" is obvious: a sunset is an event which occurs at a
time. "ti'u li vo pe le vanci" is not quite so obvious: numbers neither are
times nor belong to evenings. One has to refer to a clock to make sense of
this. One can equally grammatically say "ca le skami", which forces the
computer to be a time just as "ti'u li vo" forces four to be a time. But what
time is a computer?
Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko
--gejyspa
It's not that we add {nu} into {lo bajra} to turn {lo bajra} into an
event. Instead, build it from the inside out. {bajra} is a selbri
meaning "x1 runs on surface x2 with limbs x3 and gait x4". {nu ...
kei} wraps an entire bridi and converts it into a selbri, so {nu
[zo'e] bajra [zo'e] [zo'e] [zo'e] [kei]} is a selbri meaning "x1 is an
event of someone running on some surface with some gait". Then we
convert that to a sumti by surrounding it with {lo ... ku}, to create
a sumti that fills the x1 of that, so "some event or events of someone
running on some surface with some gait". And that event (and not a
runner) is the sort of thing that can fill kakne2.
-Alan
--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
I would not be surprised if hypothetical future native speakers of lojban would find this shortcut very convenient, though...
--
Ecce Jezuch
"All of us get lost in the darkness
Dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter
Dreamers turn to look at the cars" - N. Peart
However, I got a bone to pick now! As someone translating the gismu
list into Chinese, I wish I had known that the
(parenthetical/classifiers) before sumti were (sometimes?)
prerequisites for "sensical-ness," and not just helpful guides like
the [square/brackets/of/synonyms] before some sumti are.
I'm specifically thinking of the linked gismu list found on jbotcan
[http://jbotcan.org/gismulinked.html], where these parenthetical
expressions can range from as precise and seemingly "highly
recommended" as (jo'u) or (ka), to as English and seemingly only for
glossing purposes as (person/object), (event/state) or even (agent).
I may just be missing something. Are there in fact explicit
recommended markers for *all* (parenthetical/classifiers) on the list
I'm referencing? That is, it seems here that "... (event/state) x2
..." means something like "... (use nu or za'i) x2 ..." ...do such
cmavo-prescriptions exist for (event/property/interval/idea) too? And
all the rest?
I suspect that for things like (object/agent) we may be relying on
gray-area "common sense" distinctions between groups of gismu (i.e.
"Well, that makes no sense because normally tables aren't agents!"),
and not anything formalized-- in which case, I think we should improve
this document to make that clearer, even if it just means explicitly
using cmavo for instances where cmavo are recommended, and leaving the
other (gloss/classifiers) alone.
Although if we all had more time, I think it would be valuable to come
up with lists of sensical "object/agent/etc" tags for gismu.
co'o mi'e korbi
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
Oren Robinson
(315) 569-2888
102 Morrison Ave
Somerville, MA 02144
Well, with the caveat that (as I showed before with "mi kakne lo
drata") there is pretty much NEVER a place that OBLIGATES a use of a
particular cmavo, as the long as the sumti is in that class (simple
example, they pretty much can all take "ri" or "la'e di'u" where the
reference is of the proper class), I will start you off with
often-associated cmavo of sumti place descriptors
event nu
state za'i
idea si'o
property/quality ka
quanitifier li
set lo'i/le'i/la'i (although in the xorlo era, lo/le is probably
acceptable) or ....ce...
quantity ni
process pu'u
--gejyspa
mi kakne lo nandu be do [be'o] [ku] [vau]
I can do things that are hard for you.
Now, the most common way to get an event sumti is to use {lo nu}, but
all that's relevant is the semantic type of the sumti. With that in
mind, (event) and (agent) are pretty much the same, in that they both
impose semantic limitations or guidance on what sort of thing makes
sense to fill that role.
Is the x1 of {drata} in {mi kakne lo nu drata} necessarily the x1 of
the main selbri i.e. {mi}?
How exactly is "a runner" different from "an event of being a runner"?
If X is a runner, doesn't X represent an event of being a runner?
No. X is a person (or animal, or whatever). An "event of running"
is an action. X can perform the action of running ("da zukte lo nu
[da] bajra") or can cause it ("da gasnu lo nu lo xirma cu bajra"), but
he can't BE it.
--gejyspa
> It's not a shortcut, it's just wrong. It means "I'm capable of a
> runner." and that's always what it will mean.
Of course, but there are things like idioms, which are nonsensical literally, but do have a meaning. I'm not proposing to make it legal, don't worry, although I am slightly encouraged by cimjvo, but my main point is: how do you know what rules of the language will be inferred by a child's brain in the process of becoming a native speaker? I have no idea, I'm a liguistic noob and I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, so I'll stop here, but I sure would like to see that :)
P.S.: I too am not thrilled by sumti raising.
--
Ecce Jezuch
"Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life...
This is necessary." - M. J. Keenan
I think "Dreshcher and the toaster" may be worth understanding:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141308
Drescher and the toaster
A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating
his morning meal.
"I would like to give you this personality test", said the outsider,
"because I want you to be happy."
Drescher took the paper that was offered him and put it into the
toaster, saying: "I wish the toaster to be happy, too."
"I would like to give you this personality test because taking it
will result in you being happy." is one fix for one possible
interpretation of this koan. I know there are others! I do think
his koan demonstrates the problem domain.
Is happiness a property of the test?
Is toaster happiness the same as tester happiness?
-Alan
.i tu cipni .i tu vasxu .i tu vofli .i ku'i tu ba'e na nu vasxu .i tu
na nu vofli
.i mi kakne lo nu vofli .i ku'i mi ba'e na kakne lo nu vofli .i na'i
mi kakne lo cipni no'u lo vasxu zi'e no'u lo vofli
That's a bird. It breathes. It flies. But it is not an event of
breathing, or an event of flying.
I am capable of an event of breathing. I am *not* capable of an event
of flying. And it's just nonsense to say I'm capable of a bird (which
is a breather, and a flyer).
In the world described by the koan, I would say that the test has the
property of making someone happy (through an unspecified process) and
the toaster has (or is considered to have) the property of possibly
been happy.
I think the tester meant that he could tell, from the results of the test,
what would make Drescher happy. I'd have to know more about Drescher to make
sense of his action.
Pierre
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.
Drescher seems to think that "give test to someone/something" is
equivalent to "put test into someone/something". The joke wouldn't
work in Lojban very well, because I don't think you would say "dunda
lo cipra".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
So... If anyone wants to help, I'm going to do this and integrate it
into the Chinese translation for the gismu list I'm doing.
Fortunately nobody pays any attention to the equally silly note in the
definition of "dunda" that you can't give an apple, you can only give
possession of an apple, or in "vecnu" that you can't sell an apple,
you can only sell the possession of an apple, or that you can't offer
("friti") an apple, and so on in several other gismu. People only seem
to fixate on poor "djica".
And eating it is not the only reason you may want an apple for. What
you want it for is what goes in the x3 of djica, the x2 of djica is
for what you want.
"1. It's written out in the definition very plainly.
djuno - x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology
x4."
I don't just mean there's an issue with how the sumti are labelled in
the gismu list. Those are trivial to modify. I mean there's no way of
knowing what gismu have those ka's and nu's built into them, and which
need them explicitly added in certain sumti positions.
For example, take a look at nandu and bajra.
{ mi kakne lo bajra } is nonsensical
{ mi kakne lo nu bajra } is sensical
{ mi kakne lo nandu } is sensical
{ mi kakne lo nu nandu } (I assume) is nonsensical or overspecified.
That is, while its true that "There are no conventional
parts-of-speech distinctions like adjectives or nouns in Lojban,"
there are still undeniable semantic roles that we expect -- and reject
-- from gismu when allocated to sumti placement.
I think it's great that we all know from the definition that { se
kakne } is an event/state (so it should have a nu), but I don't like
that there are unwritten rules for which gismu have event/state built
into them. For example, I wouldn't have anticipated the bajra/nandu
discrepancy shown above. I wish for something like:
bajra - is a process (pu'u), is a state (za'i)
nandu - is an event (nu)
See what I mean?
2010/10/29 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
(It does in the Spanish version written by xorxes at least 7 years ago...)
--gejyspa
No way other than how they're labeled in the gismu list, or by reading
and understanding them. But again, I think the fundamental problem is
that it isn't that some have a {ka} or {nu} *built in*, it's that
they're of different types.
> For example, take a look at nandu and bajra.
>
> { mi kakne lo bajra } is nonsensical
> { mi kakne lo nu bajra } is sensical
Right. bajra1 is something that runs, {nu bajra kei}1 is an event.
kakne2 is an event, not something that runs.
> { mi kakne lo nandu } is sensical
> { mi kakne lo nu nandu } (I assume) is nonsensical or overspecified.
Yes. The definition of {nandu} probably should be rephrased to make it
more clear that nandu1 is an event (the thing you said you didn't have
trouble with). If we did define it as
x1 (event) is difficult/hard/challenging for x2 (agent) under
conditions x3 (event/state)
then would it make more sense to you?
But again, the distinction between events and objects isn't a matter
of inserting keywords. Does it bother you that *{mi pinxe lo jubme}
would also be considered semantic nonsense, because tables aren't the
sort of thing that one can drink?
> That is, while its true that "There are no conventional
> parts-of-speech distinctions like adjectives or nouns in Lojban,"
> there are still undeniable semantic roles that we expect -- and reject
> -- from gismu when allocated to sumti placement.
>
> I think it's great that we all know from the definition that { se
> kakne } is an event/state (so it should have a nu), but I don't like
> that there are unwritten rules for which gismu have event/state built
> into them. For example, I wouldn't have anticipated the bajra/nandu
> discrepancy shown above. I wish for something like:
>
> bajra - is a process (pu'u), is a state (za'i)
No! bajra1 is the runner. You can talk about a process of something
running {pu'u barja kei}, or a state of something running {za'i bajra
kei}, or an event of something running, but none of them are something
that runs.
> nandu - is an event (nu)
nandu1 is something that is difficult to do (and anything that can be
done is an event, in lojban terms). So nandu1 is limited to events.
Similarly, nandu2 is some agent that (could or would) attempt to do
the event in nandu1. Again, putting an explicit "(event)" into the
definition of {nandu} would be good.
> See what I mean?
I'm afraid I honestly don't, and I've tried. {lo bajra} is something
that fills the x1 of "x1 runs on surface x2 with limbs x3 and gait
x4". {lo kakne} is something that fills the x1 of "x1 can perform
action x2 under conditions x3". {lo se kakne} is something that can
fill the x2 thereof. {lo kakne ku bajra} makes sense (something that
can be capable can also run), but *{lo se kakne ku bajra} doesn't (an
event someone is capable of doing isn't the sort of thing that can
run; it has no legs at all!).
--