[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:52:56 -0000 From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email> Subject: nitcu x2 (was: RE: RE: lo'ie != lo'ei John:the x2 of nitcu is an intentional context, just like the x2 of sisku, and the same fix should be applied: switch to "x1 needs something thathas the property x2". After all, you can need a cure for Ebola even though there isn't one, which is exactly parallel with "Galadriel seeks a unicorn."I say: "the x2 of nitcu is an intentional context, just like the x2 of sisku, and the x2 of djica, the fix used for djica should be applied to nitcu and sisku: switch to "x1 needs the realization of abstraction x2" (x2 to be nu xor du'u). You can need/want/seek an individual, such as Nick or your computer, and rather than representing this as "ka ce'u du/me Nick/your computer", it is better (in the sense of being closer to the underlying meaning) to represent this as "tu'a Nick/your computer", "nu/du'u co'e Nick/your computer".
We have two alternatives, both of which throw Lojban into upheaval: allow gadri-like intensionals into siksu, or allow clausal intensionals into gismu like djica
What we cannot allow is the continuation of the current status, which allows naive statements like {mi djica lo mikce} for "I need any doctor". We are damnably lucky noone's realised until now in the mundane world we've been doing this.
So, to see how feasible things are: (1) Does anyone know how many intensional preds we have?(2) Is anyone's linguistic intuitions going to be terribly hurt if we do start saying {mi djica le ka ce'u mikce} and {mi nitcu le ka ce'u mikce}? (3) How big on the richter scale of gismu adjustment would such a move be? (4) What is the compelling current rendering of the gadri-like alternative? (5) Do we want intensional arguments like this used freely anywhere in a place structure, or strictly susbcategorised and appearing only with a handful of gismu?
Btw, And? Underlying meaning my eye. English does intensions by nominal, Lojban by clause. They're different. Underlying meaning? We're making up the underlying meaning; it's all construct. That's not underlying meaning, that how English happens to do it. And even if all languages in the world say "I need a doctor" like that, rather than "I need that there be doctoring" (and I doubt it), why should that mean Lojban should?
God. First I use ja'ai, now I'm doing Lojban essentialism... &&& NON ME TENENT VINCVLA NON ME TENET CLAVIS STETIT PVELLA RVFA TVNICA Dr Nick Nicholas http://www.opoudjis.net French & Italian QVAERO MIHI SIMILES ET ADIVNGOR SI QVIS EAM TETIGIT TVNICA CREPVIT nickn@hidden.email University of Melbourne PRAVIS ARCHIPOETAE CONFESSIO EIA E CARMINIBVS BVRANIS