[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: possible sumti-raising place structures of the sisku variety

To John Cowan respond I thus:

#la lojbab. cusku di'e

#> cerda heir x1 is an heir to/is to inherit x2 (object/quality) from x3
#> according to rule x4 a 13 (cf. jgina)
#(steps into his/her shoes, as it were).  I don't think the current wording
#is a problem.


#> fliba fail 'baffle' x1 fails at doing/being x2 (object/state/event); x1
#Raised x2; should be changed to remove "object".


#> jarco show x1 (person/object) shows/exhibits/displays/reveals x2
#> (object/property) to audience x3 8c 85
#I don't understand why "property" here.  Seems to be just a way of saying
#"object which has property", which is just "le [se] ckaji".

I disagree. You can make it apparent that you have some property. Keep it
as is.

#> jbera borrow x1 (agent) borrows/temporarily takes/assumes x2
#> (object/property) from source x3 for interval x4 3m 6
#No need for "property" here either.

Agreed. {zasni ckaji} is what this should be; the doublet is confusing.

#> kargu costly x1 (object/property) is costly/expensive/dear to x2 by
#> standard x3 5e 55 (cf. vamji, dirba, vajni)
#Don't understand why "property" here.

I do, after Iain's argument; I don't like it, but it might as well stay.

#> klina clear x1 (object/media) is clear/transparent/without obstacle to
#> in-the-clear x2 [transmission] 7j 32
#Irrelevant to this issue.

#> lebna take x1 takes/gets/gains/obtains/seizes/[removes] x2
#> (object/property) from x3 (possessor) 2b 81
#Is "removing a property" really the same as "removing a thing"?  I think
#"lebna" should be confined to the latter, and some other form found for
#"causing a thing not to have a property any longer".

I remember, when I saw the Loglan translation of 'decriminalise' as {zekri
ckaji lebna}, that I exclaimed "malglico!". This latter should be something
more like {to'e zekri ckaji zukte}

#> steci specific 'special' x1 is specific/particular/specialized/[special]
#> to subset/ind. x2 among x3(s)
#Different problem: x3 should be firmly a set.

That makes sense to me, though I am ill at these set-numbers.

#> cilre learn x1 learns x2 (du'u) about subject x3 from source x4
#> (obj./event)/by method x5 (event/process) *1h 85 (cf. ctuca, tadni,
#> djuno, ckule)
#Separate problem: the slash before "by method" doesn't belong there.

Though we could argue there is raising going on here, I don't think it
worthwhile to change the place structure.

#> ckana bed x1 is a bed/pallet of material x2 for holding/supporting x3
#> (person/object/event)
#I don't understand "event" here.  How can an event be supported by a bed?

Cleverness about copulation aside, beds support *people* doing things, not
the things themselves. Kill the event.

#> ckire grateful x1 is grateful/thankful to/appreciative of x2 for x3
#> (object/event/property) 2l 53 [also gratitude (= nunckire or kamckire)]
#Raised x3; remove "object".

#> curmi let 'permit' x1 agent lets/permits/allows x2 (object/event) under
#> conditions x3; x1 grants privilege x2 8e 57
#Raised x2; remove "object".  We do not permit someone, we permit that
#(someone does something).

With the pandemic of raising in the language, this is only consistent. Agreed.

#> darsi audacity 'dare' x1 shows audacity/chutzpah in behavior x2
#> (event/activity); x1 dares to do/be x2 (object/event)
#Raised x2; remove "object".

#> gidva guide x1 (person/object/event) guides/conducts/pilots/leads x2
#> (event) 5d 17 (cf. jitro, ralju, sazri, te bende, jatna)
#I think this is mixed up with "lidne", and should be x1 (person) guides
#x2 (person).

I'd like some semantic distinctions between lidne, jatna, gidva and ralju
made explicit, before I felt competent to say anything.

#> kurji take care of 'care' x1 takes-care-of/looks after/attends
#> to/provides for/is caretaker for x2 (object/event/person)
#I don't know what "event" is doing here; remove.

I do (it's "taking care of business"), and see no reason to remove.

#> skicu describe x1 tells about/describes x2 (object/event/state) to
#> audience x3 with description x4 (property) 7j 97 (cf. lisri)
#Not raised; no problem.

#> snura secure x1 is secure/safe from threat x2 (object/event) 9a 34 (cf.
#> ckape, kajde, marbi, terpa, xalni)

Hm. Actually, you could make a case that this is raised, but it's iffy. Keep
it as is.

#> spuda reply 'respond' x1 answers/replies to/responds to
#> person/object/event/situation x2 with response x3 1h 67 (cf. cusku,
#> preti, nabmi, danfu, frati)

Ditto my comment.

 A freshman once observed to me:         Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz.
 On the edge of the Rubicon,             nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo)
 men don't go fishing.                   CogSci and CompSci & wannabe Linguist.
   - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_     Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!!