[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > xod:
> > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > >
> > > > jaika provides us with an identity abstractor. {lo jaika ce'u xunre} is
> > > > one or more individual things that are red
> > >
> > > It provides us with something, but not an identity abstraction. Where did
> > > we go wrong? I think that jaika = seka = poi'i, but I don't think any of
> > > these offer an identity abstraction any more than le gerku or lo gerku
> > > offers the identity of the dog
> >
> > {ko'a poi'i ke'a broda} = {ko'a se ka ce'u broda} = {ko'a broda}
> >
> > but {ko'a jai ka ce'u broda} is not equivalent to these. I don't
> > know what an 'identity abstraction' is supposed to be
>
> A few hours ago, Jorge wrote
>
> i na vajni fa le du'u makau catra la lauras
> It doesn't matter who killed Laura
>
> Had we an identity abstractor Q, with lambda ce'u, then we could have said
> {na vajni fa le Q ce'u catra ly.} We weren't given one, which is why I use
> {su'u ce'u broda keibe lo kamse'i}
>
> There is an argument that an identity is not any sort of du'u, and so the
> first place of Q would not be usable in djuno2. If anything, that's just
> an indication that du'u+makau is not a du'u
>
> What sort of "knowing" is done on identities? Probably not djuno, but more
> like slabu. djuno is for facts, the identity of the killer is not a fact,
> but rather a sumti. My guess is that the dual nature of slabu indicates
> that the designers left a lacuna: a sumti-based analog of du'u, that
> indicates *knowledge* of a sumti/thing/non-du'u, but carries none of the
> old-pal connotation of slabu. The intriguing irregularities of Lojban!
> Too late to fix now. What do they indicate about the Lojbanic worldview?
If the Butler did it, then "I am familiar with the identity of the
killer" could mean "I am familiar with the identity of the Butler"
but not "I know who the killer is".
>
> --
>
> jaika is a hack. The derivation:
>
> le nu by. broda cu brode
> = tu'a by. brode
> = by. jai brode
>
> le ka ce'u broda cu ka ce'u brode
> = tu'a ce'u cu ka ce'u brode (ko na jundi le nanmu be vi le kumko'a)
> = ce'u jai ka ce'u brode
>
> So jaika is like the seka, which is actually pretty useless, since it does
> not provide identity (at best it, like every selbri, allows us to
> narrow-down the range of possibly sumti) and usually is used by people
> desiring jei. (I can expound on that last point if needed.)
Thanks for the explanation. It does my head in, though, and with
your permission I will forget about this jaika thingy.
--And.