[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > {buska} is just an ordinary predicate
> >
> >It's about as ordinary as djica and nitcu, which IMO are maldefined
> >Kalte too. (They should take a du'u or tu'a x2. Since they don't,
> >we should forget about them and use lujvo replacements for them.)
>
> So, would you say that my definition of {buska} in terms
> of {sisku} is not a proper definition? What is it lacking?
> How is it maldefined?
It's not a problem with buska. It's a problem with sisku (and djica,
nitcu, kalte), whose current x2 is wrong, given that they mean
"troci tu'o du'u co'e", encoding certain constraints on the interpretation
of co'e. Were the x2 optimally defined, the usual x2 would be
expressed as {tu'a lo} -- and here I savour the welcome but uncommon
experience of saying the same thing as pc.
> As for your identification of {lo'ei broda} with {tu'a lo broda},
> that is not quite correct. The proper identification is with
> {kair-... tu'a lo broda}, or more precisely with
> {kair-... tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda}. In other words, you
> cannot eliminate {lo'e} unless you change the predicate
Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn;t saying that {lo'ei} = {tu'a lo},
where {lo'ei} = the version of {lo'e} you've been striving to
define. I was saying that the definition of {lo'ei broda} on
the basis of {sisku} seems to make it equivalent to {tu'a lo},
in the sense that a properly-defined sisku -- call it skusi --
would be rephrased as {skusi tu'a lo broda}. Maybe I'm
misconstruing your reasoning, but you rely on the fact that
we understand what sisku means. I understand {sisku tu'o ka
ce'u broda} to mean {skusi tu'a lo broda} = {troci tu'o du'u
co'e lo broda}, with co'e understood as the usual sort of
goal of seeking. In the light of that, how am I to understand
{buska lo'e broda}?
Let me reiterate that I'm trying to get my head round your
attempt at a formal definition -- as my other messages show,
I do think we need something resembling lo'ei in order to
talk about lion-tamers (etc.!).
--And.