[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
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.
{sisku}, {djica} and {kalte} currently all have different types of x2.
{sisku} takes a property, {djica} an event and {kalte} an object. I
don't think any of them is intrinsically maldefined, they are more
or less conveniently defined. My preferred definition follows the
{kalte} model, as you know.
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.
Lets consider {djica}, which takes an event in x2. Now let me
define a new predicate {po'edji} as:
tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
ko'a po'edji ko'e
cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
ko'a djica lo nu ko'a ponse ko'e zi'o kei zi'o
(The {zi'o}'s are for simplicity, we could just as well leave
them there in the new predicate.)
The new predicate takes an object in x2. Is this new predicate
somehow ill-defined? I can say {mi po'edji ta} for "I want that"
and {mi po'edji lo'e karce} for "I want a car". It is irrelevant
to my need of {lo'e} how the gi'uste predicates are defined,
because normal person-object relationships can always be defined
as new predicates.
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}.
You could already say {sisku tu'a lo broda} since presumably
{tu'a lo broda} can stand for {tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda}.
But I want to use {lo'e} with normal predicates, not with
predicates that have been "fixed". I don't think any gismu
definition is improper in that it breaks some semantic rule.
Some definitions are better because they are more useful or
correspond better to basic meanings. I think wanting/needing/
seeking objects is more basic than wanting/needing/seeking
an event (of having some object). But however the gi'uste
defines it, we can always make a proper lujvo for the other
meaning.
Maybe I'm misconstruing your reasoning, but you rely on the fact t
hat
we understand what sisku means.
I use that fact, yes. "Rely" seems to suggest that if sisku
had not been so weirdly defined I could not define {lo'e}.
That's not the case. I only take advantage of {sisku} because
pc can't argue that it is meaningless. If I offer {kairnitcu}
or {kairdjica} he claims they are meaningless or impossible
to understand or things like that.
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}?
In terms of skusi:
tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
ko'a buska ko'e
cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
ko'a skusi tu'a ko'e
In terms of {troci}:
tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
ko'a buska ko'e
cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e zo'u
ko'a troci tu'o du'u co'e ko'e
The important thing to notice is that there is no "intensional
context" passed on to {buska}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp