Lojban In General

Posted by tijlan on Sun 26 of Oct, 2008 15:48 GMT posts: 22

coi ro do

Here's my first attempt at a short story translation:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=le+gusta+co+minde+mutce&bl=n&saved_msg=y

It's a direct translation of a Japanese piece by Miyazawa Kenji. I
intended to 1) use less shortened lujvos (e.g. {ckikykevna} instead of
{kikyke'a}, except the like of {-gau} or {-kla}), 2) make use of as
much cnima'o as to help register what I found to be the implicit
emotional information carried by the Japanese attitudinal system, and
3) explore the experimental cmavo {sa'ei} since the original text is
frequented by onomatopoeia.

An unofficial English translation can be found here (and this I think
is governed by a rather compromised reading):

http://tonygonz.blogspot.com/2006/05/restaurant-of-many-orders-miyazawa.html

Feedbacks are welcome.

I also plan on translating another piece by Miyazawa titled "Night On
The Milky Way Train".

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

>
> Here's my first attempt at a short story translation:
>
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=le+gusta+co+minde+mutce&bl=n&saved_msg=y

ua mutce xamgu .i xu do ponjo

> Feedbacks are welcome.

OK, here are some comments:

>> .i no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu vau .oi

I think you want "ja" rather than "jonai" there.

>> da'i lo nu piso'o dantyfriti fi lo jirnydza ke pelxu betfymlana zo'u

"piso'o dantyfriti" is a sumti. Maybe "piso'omei dantyfriti"?

>> .i mi ja'eda'i lo mu'e tolcikna binxo cu nu citka djica

"nu citka kei djica"?

>> .i ko'a mu'e frumu

"ko'a co'i frumu", or "mu'e ko'a frumu".

>>.i bazi lo mu'e fi le tanbo cu punji le burcu kei ge ri sa'ei .vouf. ka bumru canci gi sa'ei .douf. brife mo'ine'i le kumfa

"ka bumru kei canci"?

>> .i lo du'u ganai da'i na sutra kenro bo zenba va'u loi glare selcidja gi ba tceraktu fasnu kei se smadi le reldza

kenro->kanro

>> .i .e'o ko vi punji le cnebydasrypijne .e le batknkafsa .e le kanlyblaci .e le jdinydakli .e ro lo drata jinme to sa'e lo jipnykinli

"batknkafsa"??? Is that cuff links? What about something like
"xancykarli batke"?

>> lu go'i .ia .i ni'iku .uaru'e pleji vi ti xu ca lo nu cliva li'u

Why were they expecting to pay? Wasn't it supposed to be free?
("za'a le ti zdani cu ka'e gusta co nonjdima selfu mi'o")

>> .i vaku za'ure'u vorme poi ca'u ke'a pamei blaci patxu

"poi" needs a sumti to modify. Maybe "za'ure'u me lo vorme poi ...".
Also, you probably want "pamei ke blaci patxu".

>> .i mu'i lo za'i ru'i se vasru le patxu kei ro le reldza tai lo zu'o gacrygau fi le flira fe lei kruji cu mipri citka ri

I think "za'o" (still contains, keeps on containing) is better than
"ru'i" (contains without interruption).

"ro le relzda" is "each pair". Probably "ro le re nanmu" would be better.

>>.i .ii mi pupu'o ri'a kerlo skapyfenra

Probably needs re-wording, since it's not him that was about to be a
crack. "mi zo'u pu pu'o ..." should work.

>>.i zu'unai mi nu co'a citka sutra .auku'i

"nu co'a citka kei sutra"?

>> .i ju'o ditcu me'i lo mentu be li pamu

I think: "lo mentu be li me'ipamu".
"me'i lo mentu be li pamu" is "not all ten-minute intervals".

>> ti ka sarvanju .uanai pancydjacu

"ka sarvanju kei" or just "sarvanju pancydjacu"

>> .i ku'i ba'e caroi le reldza cu terpa gi'e mu'e simxu catlu le flira noi ba'o mutce co se gacri loi kruji

"caroi" is not grammatical. I use "ca lo ca krefu" for "this time".

Also, mu'e -> co'i

>> lu ... .i ni'iku la'edi'u se smuni .y. jy. jy. jy. ja'o lo du'u my. my. mi'o ... li'u

"jy.jy.jy" and "my.my" are sumti that will fill a sumti place, and
that final part is not grammatical because there's no selbri after
du'u, so it can't really be in lu-li'u quotes. It's hard to stammer in
Lojban and not meddle with the grammar.

>>.i sa'ei .gatagatat. ko'a tu'a le ti'a vorme catke troci

"cu catke troci"?

>> .i va za'ure'u vorme poi ke'a fe'ereroi se ckikykevna co barda

"vorme poi" -> "me lo vorme poi"

>> .i fi'isai ko ga'inai mo'i nenri

You need "do'u" after "fi'isai" if "ko" is meant to be the x1 of "nenri".

>> .i ji'asai mo'ito'o le ckikykevna ku re blanu kanlybolci sa'ei .kiorokioror. cu fa'a ti catlu

"fa'a ti" is a term, it can't come between "cu" and the selbri. You
can just omit "cu" there, or move "fa'a ti" before "cu" or after
"catlu".

>> .i ju'a le la jatna cusku tadji cu xlali

"le la jatna ku cusku tadji"

>> .i la jatna .io za'o za'i cutnybukpu dasni jeke dakfu jgari jeke tance mosra ke'e denpa tu'a do doi .io vitke

"za'i ... kei"

>> .i le pe le ckikykevna ku'o kanlybolci cu zisai to'o cliva

ku'o -> ge'u

>> .i le gerku ge ze'a ke cmoni clupyklama ne'i le kumfa gibabo fau lo mu'e za'ure'u pavykrixa kei sutra plipe fa'a le lamji vorme

kei -> cu

>>.i ri sa'ei .gatar. kalri binxo ja'e lo nu ro le gerku cu se sakci pe'a pa'o klama

"pa'o" (or any tag) can't be used as part of a tanru.

>> .i ne'i lo ze'o le vorme ku manku cu bacru lu sa'ei .niaaon.kuaan.gorgor. li'u

A tagged sumti can't be used in that position, but "pe ze'o le vorme
ku" will work.

>> .i le kumfa sekai lo ka danmo cu mu'e canci

mu'e -> co'i

>> .i le reldza cu ri'a di'a menlykenro

kenro -> kanro

Nice work!

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Mon 03 of Nov, 2008 02:43 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/2 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

>>
>> Here's my first attempt at a short story translation:
>>
>> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=le+gusta+co+minde+mutce&bl=n&saved_msg=y
>
> ua mutce xamgu .i xu do ponjo

ki'e .i na go'e .i mi ponbau kakne seja'e lo nu ze'u xabju la .tokion.
ca lo citycedra

.i mi gleki lo nu lo mi nuntadni be la .lojban. cu se vanbi lo tai
crepre doi .xorxes.

>>> .i no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu vau .oi
>
> I think you want "ja" rather than "jonai" there.

My thought was: can a little bird (which was what I meant by {cipni})
be also a beast?

>>> da'i lo nu piso'o dantyfriti fi lo jirnydza ke pelxu betfymlana zo'u
>
> "piso'o dantyfriti" is a sumti. Maybe "piso'omei dantyfriti"?

My mistake. By {piso'o} I intended to mean "some of the bullets". I
was ambitiously looking for a way to say it in a tense-like form.

Supposing {piso'omei dantyfriti} is a tanru, I think I'll go with that.

>>> .i mi ja'eda'i lo mu'e tolcikna binxo cu nu citka djica
>
> "nu citka kei djica"?

I knew about the convention, but I wasn't clear about why NU's scope
was considered that long. If the left-grouping applies to NU too,
shouldn't {nu citka} without the delimiter be a separate seltau for
{djica}?

>>> .i ko'a mu'e frumu
>
> "ko'a co'i frumu", or "mu'e ko'a frumu".

Is {mu'e frumu} not a valid selbri?

>>> lu go'i .ia .i ni'iku .uaru'e pleji vi ti xu ca lo nu cliva li'u
>
> Why were they expecting to pay?

They weren't, before they entered the room. My interpretation is: Now
that they are asked to leave their wallets before they sit at the
table, ko'a has started re-questioning the possibility of payment. And
ko'e seconds that guess. This shared guesswork eventually solidifies.
Yet perhaps {go'i la'a} sounds a bit too strong than it should be
(should be closer to "It seems so"). After all, they are hungry to the
point where they feel they are about to mentally fail. Their brains
not working right can be one apologetic ;)

>>> .i ku'i ba'e caroi le reldza cu terpa gi'e mu'e simxu catlu le flira noi ba'o mutce co se gacri loi kruji
>
> "caroi" is not grammatical. I use "ca lo ca krefu" for "this time".

I was quite unsure about {caroi} myself. {ca lo ca krefu} looks a bit
wordy but I like the idea. Will be fixed. Thank you.

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Mon 03 of Nov, 2008 02:43 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/2 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

>>
>> Here's my first attempt at a short story translation:
>>
>> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=le+gusta+co+minde+mutce&bl=n&saved_msg=y
>
> ua mutce xamgu .i xu do ponjo

ki'e .i na go'e .i mi ponbau kakne seja'e lo nu ze'u xabju la .tokion.
ca lo citycedra

.i mi gleki lo nu lo mi nuntadni be la .lojban. cu se vanbi lo tai
crepre doi .xorxes.

>>> .i no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu vau .oi
>
> I think you want "ja" rather than "jonai" there.

My thought was: can a little bird (which was what I meant by {cipni})
be also a beast?

>>> da'i lo nu piso'o dantyfriti fi lo jirnydza ke pelxu betfymlana zo'u
>
> "piso'o dantyfriti" is a sumti. Maybe "piso'omei dantyfriti"?

My mistake. By {piso'o} I intended to mean "some of the bullets". I
was ambitiously looking for a way to say it in a tense-like form.

Supposing {piso'omei dantyfriti} is a tanru, I think I'll go with that.

>>> .i mi ja'eda'i lo mu'e tolcikna binxo cu nu citka djica
>
> "nu citka kei djica"?

I knew about the convention, but I wasn't clear about why NU's scope
was considered that long. If the left-grouping applies to NU too,
shouldn't {nu citka} without the delimiter be a separate seltau for
{djica}?

>>> .i ko'a mu'e frumu
>
> "ko'a co'i frumu", or "mu'e ko'a frumu".

Is {mu'e frumu} not a valid selbri?

>>> lu go'i .ia .i ni'iku .uaru'e pleji vi ti xu ca lo nu cliva li'u
>
> Why were they expecting to pay?

They weren't, before they entered the room. My interpretation is: Now
that they are asked to leave their wallets before they sit at the
table, ko'a has started re-questioning the possibility of payment. And
ko'e seconds that guess. This shared guesswork eventually solidifies.
Yet perhaps {go'i la'a} sounds a bit too strong than it should be
(should be closer to "It seems so"). After all, they are hungry to the
point where they feel they are about to mentally fail. Their brains
not working right can be one apologetic ;)

>>> .i ku'i ba'e caroi le reldza cu terpa gi'e mu'e simxu catlu le flira noi ba'o mutce co se gacri loi kruji
>
> "caroi" is not grammatical. I use "ca lo ca krefu" for "this time".

I was quite unsure about {caroi} myself. {ca lo ca krefu} looks a bit
wordy but I like the idea. Will be fixed. Thank you.

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by PierreAbbat on Mon 03 of Nov, 2008 04:02 GMT posts: 324

On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:35:57 tijlan wrote:
> coi ro do
>
> Here's my first attempt at a short story translation:
>
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=le+gusta+co+minde+mutce&bl=n
>&saved_msg=y
>
> It's a direct translation of a Japanese piece by Miyazawa Kenji. I
> intended to 1) use less shortened lujvos (e.g. {ckikykevna} instead of
> {kikyke'a}, except the like of {-gau} or {-kla}), 2) make use of as
> much cnima'o as to help register what I found to be the implicit
> emotional information carried by the Japanese attitudinal system, and
> 3) explore the experimental cmavo {sa'ei} since the original text is
> frequented by onomatopoeia.
>
> An unofficial English translation can be found here (and this I think
> is governed by a rather compromised reading):
>
> http://tonygonz.blogspot.com/2006/05/restaurant-of-many-orders-miyazawa.htm
>l
>
> Feedbacks are welcome.

"lo nanca be li 1924" means "1924 years"; you want "le 1924moi nanca".

jirnydza: If you mean "deer", that's "mirli". But I've seen a tongue
twister "kamoshika mo shika mo shika da ga", "the serow and the shika are
both deer", and the serow is actually a goat-antelope. What's the Japanese
word here mean?

pevymoklu: "y" isn't needed.

Maybe more later...

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Mon 03 of Nov, 2008 12:00 GMT posts: 22

> "lo nanca be li 1924" means "1924 years"; you want "le 1924moi nanca".

je'e

> jirnydza: If you mean "deer", that's "mirli". But I've seen a tongue
> twister "kamoshika mo shika mo shika da ga", "the serow and the shika are
> both deer", and the serow is actually a goat-antelope. What's the Japanese
> word here mean?

You're right. Originally it's "shika" and for that I should have used
"mirli".

As for the twister, it's partly due to the irony that kamoshika (Bovidae)
and shika (Cervidae) are biologically distant but lexically close. It can
translate as:

(ju'a) | ku'i

ki'e

> 2008/11/2 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
>>>> .i no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu vau .oi
>>
>> I think you want "ja" rather than "jonai" there.
>
> My thought was: can a little bird (which was what I meant by {cipni})
> be also a beast?

Even if nothing could be both cipni and vlilydanlu (and I'm not sure
that's true) I would still prefer "ja", simply because it's easier to
understand. After all, the point is just that there aren't any cipni,
and that there aren't any vlilydanlu.

>>>> da'i lo nu piso'o dantyfriti fi lo jirnydza ke pelxu betfymlana zo'u
>>
>> "piso'o dantyfriti" is a sumti. Maybe "piso'omei dantyfriti"?
>
> My mistake. By {piso'o} I intended to mean "some of the bullets". I
> was ambitiously looking for a way to say it in a tense-like form.
>
> Supposing {piso'omei dantyfriti} is a tanru, I think I'll go with that.

It's a tanru, yes. {friti so'o lo danti lo jirnydza ke pelxu
betfymlana} would be more straightforward.

>>>> .i mi ja'eda'i lo mu'e tolcikna binxo cu nu citka djica
>>
>> "nu citka kei djica"?
>
> I knew about the convention, but I wasn't clear about why NU's scope
> was considered that long.

NU will grab a whole sentence after it, in this case the sentence {citka djica}

> If the left-grouping applies to NU too,
> shouldn't {nu citka} without the delimiter be a separate seltau for
> {djica}?

The left grouping applies to the {NU ... KEI} tanru unit. NU by itself
is not a tanru unit, it converts a whole sentence that follows into a
tanru unit.

>>>> .i ko'a mu'e frumu
>>
>> "ko'a co'i frumu", or "mu'e ko'a frumu".
>
> Is {mu'e frumu} not a valid selbri?

{ko'a mu'e frumu} is a grammatical sentence, but it says that ko'a (a
man) is an event of frowning.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Mon 03 of Nov, 2008 12:16 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> >>>> .i ko'a mu'e frumu
> >>
> >> "ko'a co'i frumu", or "mu'e ko'a frumu".
> >
> > Is {mu'e frumu} not a valid selbri?
>
>
> {ko'a mu'e frumu} is a grammatical sentence, but it says that ko'a (a
> man) is an event of frowning.

Ah ;)

Once again, thank you for your attention.

Posted by PierreAbbat on Mon 03 of Nov, 2008 13:37 GMT posts: 324

On Monday 03 November 2008 06:57:13 tijlan wrote:
> As for the twister, it's partly due to the irony that kamoshika (Bovidae)
> and shika (Cervidae) are biologically distant but lexically close. It can
> translate as:
>

> (ju'a) | ku'i

Well the other part, "tashika ashika wa shika de wa nai," is about the sea
lion, which isn't even an ungulate. The serow, like the deer, is a ruminant
ungulate with head appendages.

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by PierreAbbat on Sat 08 of Nov, 2008 04:16 GMT posts: 324

On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:35:57 tijlan wrote:
> no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu

"zo'e ga'i", IIRR, means that the speaker feels haughtiness toward zo'e, which
doesn't make much sense.

I think "vlilydanlu" should be "mabru". A deer, mentioned in the next
utterance, isn't what I'd call a vlilydanlu, although the act of shooting a
deer is certainly vlile. Maybe it could be "cicymabru".

> .ei mutce pluka ba'a

"ei" doesn't make much sense. "As to offering a few bullets to the side of a
deer's belly, I am *obliged* that it would be very pleasing, which I look
forward to."

> cmana condi

Is that a lake or depression on a mountaintop?

> flirytcima

face-weather?

> cmanyjipci

mountain-chicken? The English translation says "game birds". What's the
original say?

> .a'inaisai .i ti to'eki'unai lo za'i tai vanbi ce'u kei ca'a kagni stuzi
> zo'e

I can't quite make sense of this. "Not despite being an environment of this,
it actually is a corporation site"?

> ni'i ma fe'eso'iroi vorme

"ni'i" means a logical reason. One of the other whys probably would make more
sense.

...skipping over text I may check later...

> ne'i lo ze'o le vorme ku manku cu bacru lu
> sa'ei .niaaon.kuaan.gorgor.
> li'u

Did the dogs say "sa'ei", or did they just say "niaaon.kuaan.gorgor"? I
suspect the latter, which is grammatical according to jbofi'e.

> .gasagasas

I think that should be "gasagasag" or "gasagas". Adding an "s" at the end
breaks the pattern.

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Sat 08 of Nov, 2008 09:30 GMT posts: 22

> On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:35:57 tijlan wrote:
> > no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu
>
> "zo'e ga'i", IIRR, means that the speaker feels haughtiness toward zo'e,
> which
> doesn't make much sense.

Oh, it seems I got it wrong all the way. This "zo'e" should be an object of
the speaker's contempt. On the contrary, the first message on the first
door, which I started with "doi ro do ga'i", should reflect the honorific
speech. So "zo'e ga'inai" is the right one?

I think "vlilydanlu" should be "mabru". A deer, mentioned in the next
> utterance, isn't what I'd call a vlilydanlu, although the act of shooting a
> deer is certainly vlile. Maybe it could be "cicymabru".

Originally "kemono", it should translate to something like "beast" in
English. It's meant to be a contrast to "cipni" in fierceness. The speaker
is emphasizing the absence of objects to hunt by referring to a wide range
from "birds" to "beasts". A deer can be somewhere between the two
polarities.

> .ei mutce pluka ba'a
>
> "ei" doesn't make much sense. "As to offering a few bullets to the side of
> a
> deer's belly, I am *obliged* that it would be very pleasing, which I look
> forward to."

He is feeling *non-freedom* ("einainai") in the sense that it must be the
case that, if he shoots a deer, it will very please him. And this pleasure
is what he's looking forward to.

> cmana condi
>
> Is that a lake or depression on a mountaintop?

Originally "yama-oku" ("mountain-deep/inside"), it means that the x1 is a
place you would reach if you walk for some time toward the center of a
mountain or of a group of mountains. I had in mind something like this:
http://hanaumiyama.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/19/1.jpg

> flirytcima
>
> face-weather?

Originally "kao-iro" ("face-colour"), it's based on the idea that faces are
expressive of psychological climate.

> cmanyjipci
>
> mountain-chicken? The English translation says "game birds". What's the
> original say?

"Yama-dori" ("mountain-bird"), or "copper pheasant" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Pheasant). I wanted to avoid using
"cipni", which is too general while "copper phesant" is specific enough, and
which might cause a confusion with the earlier "cipni", the one the guys are
looking for in the mountain.

Any suggestion?

> .a'inaisai .i ti to'eki'unai lo za'i tai vanbi ce'u kei ca'a kagni stuzi
> > zo'e
>
> I can't quite make sense of this. "Not despite being an environment of
> this,
> it actually is a corporation site"?

"to'eki'unai" is "not prevented by reason ..." ("to'eki'u" being "prevented
by reason ..."). Which gives "despite being surrounded by such an
environment" for the sumtcita.

By "kagni" I meant "business". Maybe "cuntu" is better.

The speaker is surprised by the fact that, in the midst of such an empty
mountain(s) (no birds, no beasts), there is actually a business (restaurant)
going on.

> ni'i ma fe'eso'iroi vorme
>
> "ni'i" means a logical reason. One of the other whys probably would make
> more
> sense.

The speaker is not questioning a specific why. And, in my opinion, "ni'i" is
a generic one, encompassing the other whys, like "nu" is to the other NUs.
The sentence can be rephrased as:

ma nibli lo nu fe'eso'iroi vorme

This "ma" can be answered by either "krinu" or "mukti" or "rinka" or "se
jalge", depending on what it actually turns out to be.

> ne'i lo ze'o le vorme ku manku cu bacru lu
> > sa'ei .niaaon.kuaan.gorgor.
> > li'u
>
> Did the dogs say "sa'ei", or did they just say "niaaon.kuaan.gorgor"? I
> suspect the latter, which is grammatical according to jbofi'e.
>

Is "sa'a" within "lu ... li'u" considered to be an actual part of the quoted
utterance? I think not. If something can be skipped over like that, so
should "sa'ei" be too, shouldn't it? And it's an experimental cmavo; what
may be obvious to humans may not already be so to jbofi'e.

> .gasagasas
>
> I think that should be "gasagasag" or "gasagas". Adding an "s" at the end
> breaks the pattern.

Originally "gasagasa", it's one of the Japanese ways of expressing the
sounds of friction/scraping/rubbing, along with "sarasara", "zarazara",
"sharishari", "fusafusa", "pasapasa", and so forth. As you can see, "s" is
more common than "g" for the sounds of this kind. Other justifications are:
phonetically, "s" in both Japanese and Lojban is fricative, which
conceptually parallels to the fact that what "gasagasa" represents is the
friction of the grass; and the word for "grass" in Lojban begins with an "s"
;)

mu'o mi'e tijlan

>
>> .ei mutce pluka ba'a
>
> "ei" doesn't make much sense. "As to offering a few bullets to the side of a
> deer's belly, I am *obliged* that it would be very pleasing, which I look
> forward to."

I think ".ei" indicates how the speaker feels things ought to be. I
read it as: "As to offering a few bullets to the side of a deer's
belly, it ought to be very pleasing, I expect."

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

>
> The speaker is not questioning a specific why. And, in my opinion, "ni'i" is
> a generic one, encompassing the other whys, like "nu" is to the other NUs.
> The sentence can be rephrased as:
>
> ma nibli lo nu fe'eso'iroi vorme
>
> This "ma" can be answered by either "krinu" or "mukti" or "rinka" or "se
> jalge", depending on what it actually turns out to be.

I would have said "ki'u ma" is the most general one, "what is the
explanation for ...?", and not "from what can we deduce that ...?"
which is what "ni'i ma" asks. I guess a logical entailment can also
work as an explanation: All Russian-style buildings have many doors.
This is a Russian-style building. Therefore, this building has many
doors. That's the kind of answer provided, so "ni'i ma" is not
ncessarily wrong, but I don't see that reasons, motives and physical
causes can be logical entailments.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by PierreAbbat on Sun 09 of Nov, 2008 02:56 GMT posts: 324

On Saturday 08 November 2008 04:22:48 tijlan wrote:

>
> > On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:35:57 tijlan wrote:
> > > no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu
> >
> > "zo'e ga'i", IIRR, means that the speaker feels haughtiness toward zo'e,
> > which
> > doesn't make much sense.
>
> Oh, it seems I got it wrong all the way. This "zo'e" should be an object of
> the speaker's contempt. On the contrary, the first message on the first
> door, which I started with "doi ro do ga'i", should reflect the honorific
> speech. So "zo'e ga'inai" is the right one?

I'm not sure which way "ga'i" goes, but it seems strange to honor or contempt
a word that's just a placeholder.

> Originally "kemono", it should translate to something like "beast" in
> English. It's meant to be a contrast to "cipni" in fierceness. The speaker
> is emphasizing the absence of objects to hunt by referring to a wide range
> from "birds" to "beasts". A deer can be somewhere between the two
> polarities.

Hmm, there are vlilycpi also, such as eagles and shrikes. I'm not sure what
word to use for "kemono", but "bi'i' may make sense between them.

> Originally "kao-iro" ("face-colour"), it's based on the idea that faces are
> expressive of psychological climate.

I think that's a good one.

> "Yama-dori" ("mountain-bird"), or "copper pheasant" (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Pheasant). I wanted to avoid using
> "cipni", which is too general while "copper phesant" is specific enough,
> and which might cause a confusion with the earlier "cipni", the one the
> guys are looking for in the mountain.
>
> Any suggestion?

"ma'arjipci" is good. Could you check how wide a taxon it should refer to
(just the Copper Pheasant, or the genus, or any pheasant) and add it to
jbovlaste? I'll do the same with "fi'orxruki", which I made up many moons
ago.

> > ni'i ma fe'eso'iroi vorme
> >
> > "ni'i" means a logical reason. One of the other whys probably would make
> > more
> > sense.
>
> The speaker is not questioning a specific why. And, in my opinion, "ni'i"
> is a generic one, encompassing the other whys, like "nu" is to the other
> NUs. The sentence can be rephrased as:
>
> ma nibli lo nu fe'eso'iroi vorme
>
> This "ma" can be answered by either "krinu" or "mukti" or "rinka" or "se
> jalge", depending on what it actually turns out to be.

I agree with xorxes that "ki'u" is the most general. I'd like to hear a
Russian's opinion though. Russian has three words for "why".

> Is "sa'a" within "lu ... li'u" considered to be an actual part of the
> quoted utterance? I think not. If something can be skipped over like that,
> so should "sa'ei" be too, shouldn't it? And it's an experimental cmavo;
> what may be obvious to humans may not already be so to jbofi'e.

"sa'a" marks the previous word as not being part of the quoted
utterance; "sa'ei" marks the next word as being an ideophone. You could
say "sa'ei sa'a niaaon.kuaan.gorgor", but that sounds like the dog uttered an
ideophone and forgot to mark it as such. The dog was just making noises. So I
think that dropping "sa'a" is better. In the sentences that are bare quotes,
without "le co'e cu cusku", "sa'ei" should be left in.

phma

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Sun 09 of Nov, 2008 12:43 GMT posts: 22

> On Saturday 08 November 2008 04:22:48 tijlan wrote:

> >
> > > On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:35:57 tijlan wrote:
> > > > no sai zo'e ga'i vi cipni jonai vlilydanlu
> > >
> > > "zo'e ga'i", IIRR, means that the speaker feels haughtiness toward
> zo'e,
> > > which
> > > doesn't make much sense.
> >
> > Oh, it seems I got it wrong all the way. This "zo'e" should be an object
> of
> > the speaker's contempt. On the contrary, the first message on the first
> > door, which I started with "doi ro do ga'i", should reflect the honorific
> > speech. So "zo'e ga'inai" is the right one?
>
> I'm not sure which way "ga'i" goes, but it seems strange to honor or
> contempt
> a word that's just a placeholder.

It's a placeholder for the concept "something which are bird(s) and/or
beast(s)" (I changed "jonai" to "ja"). When the speaker utters the word
"zo'e", he is having this concept or image in mind. And this image provokes
him into feeling a contempt. So, at least on the speaker's part, it's not
unnatural if a UI is put right after a word the referent of which may not be
immediately obvious to the reader.

After all, every word is a word. If "zo'e ga'i cipni" is meaningless, so
must be "le .iu cipni" or "le cipni .iu" too, since both "le" and "cipni"
are words.

> > Originally "kemono", it should translate to something like "beast" in
> > English. It's meant to be a contrast to "cipni" in fierceness. The
> speaker
> > is emphasizing the absence of objects to hunt by referring to a wide
> range
> > from "birds" to "beasts". A deer can be somewhere between the two
> > polarities.
>
>
> Hmm, there are vlilycpi also, such as eagles and shrikes.

It depends on the fauna in which the speaker/narrator is contextualized, or
the epistemological condition thereby. As for "swan", for example, it's not
necessary for British people to always assume "there are white ones and
black ones", since black swans are uncommon in Britain. Likewise, it need
not be the case that the characters in the story anticipate the existence of
"vlilycpi" in this particular region of mountains if they already know that
such kind of birds is anyway very uncommon in the region.

I'm not sure what
> word to use for "kemono", but "bi'i' may make sense between them.

If that can increase the readability, I'm pleased to fix it.

> > "Yama-dori" ("mountain-bird"), or "copper pheasant" (
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Pheasant). I wanted to avoid using
> > "cipni", which is too general while "copper phesant" is specific enough,
> > and which might cause a confusion with the earlier "cipni", the one the
> > guys are looking for in the mountain.
> >
> > Any suggestion?
>
>
> "ma'arjipci" is good. Could you check how wide a taxon it should refer to
> (just the Copper Pheasant, or the genus, or any pheasant) and add it to
> jbovlaste? I'll do the same with "fi'orxruki", which I made up many moons
> ago.

Both "jipci" and "ma'arjipci" are of the family Phasianidae, the latter's
particularity being the genus Syrmaticus and the species Syrmaticus
Soemmerringii. I couldn't confirm whether the quality "ma'a-" should apply
to Syrmaticus, so I defined "ma'arjipci" as Syrmaticus Soemmerringii:

http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ma%27arjipci

Isn't a corresponding Latin/Greek fu'ivla also desirable?

> > Is "sa'a" within "lu ... li'u" considered to be an actual part of the
> > quoted utterance? I think not. If something can be skipped over like
> that,
> > so should "sa'ei" be too, shouldn't it? And it's an experimental cmavo;
> > what may be obvious to humans may not already be so to jbofi'e.
>
>
> "sa'a" marks the previous word as not being part of the quoted
> utterance;"sa'ei" marks the next word as being an ideophone. You could
> say "sa'ei sa'a niaaon.kuaan.gorgor", but that sounds like the dog uttered
> an
> ideophone and forgot to mark it as such. The dog was just making noises. So
> I
> think that dropping "sa'a" is better. In the sentences that are bare
> quotes,
> without "le co'e cu cusku", "sa'ei" should be left in.

Can't a word make itself editorial or metalinguistic? "sei" already seems to
do that as in "lu sei la alis pensi mi zvati ma li'u"? If "sei" can
automatically be not part of the original quotation, why not "sa'ei" too?

(BTW the sound is meant to be of the cats, who have been hiding in that last
room and are now being attacked by the dogs.)

mu'o mi'e tijlan

Posted by tijlan on Sun 09 of Nov, 2008 12:43 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/8 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> >
> > The speaker is not questioning a specific why. And, in my opinion, "ni'i"
> is
> > a generic one, encompassing the other whys, like "nu" is to the other
> NUs.
> > The sentence can be rephrased as:
> >
> > ma nibli lo nu fe'eso'iroi vorme
> >
> > This "ma" can be answered by either "krinu" or "mukti" or "rinka" or "se
> > jalge", depending on what it actually turns out to be.
>
> I would have said "ki'u ma" is the most general one, "what is the
> explanation for ...?", and not "from what can we deduce that ...?"
> which is what "ni'i ma" asks. I guess a logical entailment can also
> work as an explanation: All Russian-style buildings have many doors.
> This is a Russian-style building. Therefore, this building has many
> doors. That's the kind of answer provided, so "ni'i ma" is not
> ncessarily wrong, but I don't see that reasons, motives and physical
> causes can be logical entailments.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>
I co'a understand more tu'a "ki'u" & "ni'i", thank you.

mi'e tijlan

>
> I'm not sure which way "ga'i" goes,

I'm never sure about that either. I think in this case it's "zo'e
ga'i" when talking about those lowly animals, and "do ga'inai" when
addressig someone of higher rank. So "ga'i"/"ga'inai" marks the rank
of the speaker as higher/lower than the other, whereas "io"/"ionai"
marks the attitude of the speaker towards someone else, a slight
difference in perspective.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by PierreAbbat on Sun 09 of Nov, 2008 18:00 GMT posts: 324

On Sunday 09 November 2008 12:37:40 Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > I'm not sure which way "ga'i" goes,
>
> I'm never sure about that either. I think in this case it's "zo'e
> ga'i" when talking about those lowly animals, and "do ga'inai" when
> addressig someone of higher rank. So "ga'i"/"ga'inai" marks the rank
> of the speaker as higher/lower than the other, whereas "io"/"ionai"
> marks the attitude of the speaker towards someone else, a slight
> difference in perspective.

So a farmer with a worm bin could say "curnu ga'i .io", meaning he respects
the worms, though regarding them as lowly. Right?

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Sun 09 of Nov, 2008 18:21 GMT posts: 22

> On Sunday 09 November 2008 12:37:40 Jorge Llambías wrote:

> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure which way "ga'i" goes,
> >
> > I'm never sure about that either. I think in this case it's "zo'e
> > ga'i" when talking about those lowly animals, and "do ga'inai" when
> > addressig someone of higher rank. So "ga'i"/"ga'inai" marks the rank
> > of the speaker as higher/lower than the other, whereas "io"/"ionai"
> > marks the attitude of the speaker towards someone else, a slight
> > difference in perspective.
>
> So a farmer with a worm bin could say "curnu ga'i .io", meaning he respects
> the worms, though regarding them as lowly. Right?

"ga'i" comes before "io", so I would read it as meaning he feels haughtiness
in relation to the worms and at the same time respecting that circumstance
in which haughtiness is felt by himself (not necessarily respecting the
worms themselves).

mu'o mi'e tijlan

> I would have said "ki'u ma" is the most general one, "what is the
> explanation for ...?", and not "from what can we deduce that ...?"
> which is what "ni'i ma" asks. I guess a logical entailment can also
> work as an explanation: All Russian-style buildings have many doors.
> This is a Russian-style building. Therefore, this building has many
> doors. That's the kind of answer provided, so "ni'i ma" is not
> ncessarily wrong, but I don't see that reasons, motives and physical
> causes can be logical entailments.

I've always thought that {se ja'e ma} is the most general version. It's just
"as a result of", without specifying what kind of result.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

You can't get a leopard to change his spots. In fact, now that I come to
think of it, you can't really get a leopard to appreciate the notion that it

• has* spots. You can explain it carefully to the leopard, but it will just sit

there looking at you, knowing that you are made of meat. After a while it
will perhaps kill you.
--Geoffrey K. Pullum

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Adam D. Lopresto <adam@pubcrawler.org> wrote:
>
> I've always thought that {se ja'e ma} is the most general version. It's
> just
> "as a result of", without specifying what kind of result.

I think {se jalge} definitely covers {rinka}, but I'm not sure it
covers all kinds of {mukti}. A motive can be an event that is
(potentially) in the future of the event it motivates. Can a result
occur before what it results from? For example:

lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu mukti lo nu mi klama le zarci
I will buy butter motivates I go to the market.
I go to the market to buy butter.

lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu krinu lo nu mi klama le zarci
I will buy butter is the reason I go to the market.
I go to the market because I will buy butter.

both sound acceptable. I'm not sure about:

? lo nu mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne
? I go to the market is the resut of I will buy butter.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Mon 10 of Nov, 2008 17:20 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/10 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Adam D. Lopresto <adam@pubcrawler.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've always thought that {se ja'e ma} is the most general version. It's
>> just
>> "as a result of", without specifying what kind of result.
>
> I think {se jalge} definitely covers {rinka}, but I'm not sure it
> covers all kinds of {mukti}. A motive can be an event that is
> (potentially) in the future of the event it motivates. Can a result
> occur before what it results from? For example:
>
> lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu mukti lo nu mi klama le zarci
> I will buy butter motivates I go to the market.
> I go to the market to buy butter.
>
> lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu krinu lo nu mi klama le zarci
> I will buy butter is the reason I go to the market.
> I go to the market because I will buy butter.
>
> both sound acceptable. I'm not sure about:
>
> ? lo nu mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne
> ? I go to the market is the resut of I will buy butter.

In this case I think it's essential that we retain the "lo nu" parts
as we interpret the sentences:

lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu mukti lo nu mi klama le zarci
The (ideal) event "I will buy butter" motivates the (actual) event "I
go to the market".

lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu krinu lo nu mi klama le zarci
The (ideal) event "I will buy butter" justifies the (actual) event "I
go to the market".

lo nu mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne
The (actual) event "I go to the market" results from the (ideal)
event "I will buy butter".

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

>
> In this case I think it's essential that we retain the "lo nu" parts
> as we interpret the sentences:
>
> lo nu mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne
> The (actual) event "I go to the market" results from the (ideal)
> event "I will buy butter".

That's what I'm not sure about. Can an actual, present event be the
result of an ideal, future event?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Mon 10 of Nov, 2008 17:55 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/10 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

>>
>> In this case I think it's essential that we retain the "lo nu" parts
>> as we interpret the sentences:
>>
>> lo nu mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne
>> The (actual) event "I go to the market" results from the (ideal)
>> event "I will buy butter".
>
> That's what I'm not sure about. Can an actual, present event be the
> result of an ideal, future event?

Being ideal doesn't necessarily mean being incapable of being an
antecedent. For clarity, let me specify these general "nu"s:

lo zu'o mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo si'o mi ba te vecnu lo matne

There is an idea of me buying butter to begin with, and then, as a
result, there is an action of me going to the market.

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

>
> Being ideal doesn't necessarily mean being incapable of being an
> antecedent.

Right, as mukti and krinu show.

>For clarity, let me specify these general "nu"s:
>
> lo zu'o mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo si'o mi ba te vecnu lo matne
>
> There is an idea of me buying butter to begin with, and then, as a
> result, there is an action of me going to the market.

OK.

Now we would need an example where jalge works and krinu doesn't, to
show that jalge is more general, or an example where krinu works and
jalge doesn't, to show that krinu is more general. (Or both, to show
that neither is more general, just different.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

To the best of my knowledge, "I will buy butter" is not a motive."I have run
out of butter" is a motive.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Adam D. Lopresto <adam@pubcrawler.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I've always thought that {se ja'e ma} is the most general version. It's
> > just
> > "as a result of", without specifying what kind of result.
>
> I think {se jalge} definitely covers {rinka}, but I'm not sure it
> covers all kinds of {mukti}. A motive can be an event that is
> (potentially) in the future of the event it motivates. Can a result
> occur before what it results from? For example:
>
> lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu mukti lo nu mi klama le zarci
> I will buy butter motivates I go to the market.
> I go to the market to buy butter.
>
> lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu krinu lo nu mi klama le zarci
> I will buy butter is the reason I go to the market.
> I go to the market because I will buy butter.
>
> both sound acceptable. I'm not sure about:
>
> ? lo nu mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne
> ? I go to the market is the resut of I will buy butter.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

Or, more correctly, "I need butter, and I have run out of butter" is a
motive.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Elias Friedman <skierb27@gmail.com> wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, "I will buy butter" is not a motive."I have
> run out of butter" is a motive.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Adam D. Lopresto <adam@pubcrawler.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've always thought that {se ja'e ma} is the most general version. It's
>> > just
>> > "as a result of", without specifying what kind of result.
>>
>> I think {se jalge} definitely covers {rinka}, but I'm not sure it
>> covers all kinds of {mukti}. A motive can be an event that is
>> (potentially) in the future of the event it motivates. Can a result
>> occur before what it results from? For example:
>>
>> lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu mukti lo nu mi klama le zarci
>> I will buy butter motivates I go to the market.
>> I go to the market to buy butter.
>>
>> lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne cu krinu lo nu mi klama le zarci
>> I will buy butter is the reason I go to the market.
>> I go to the market because I will buy butter.
>>
>> both sound acceptable. I'm not sure about:
>>
>> ? lo nu mi klama le zarci cu jalge lo nu mi ba te vecnu lo matne
>> ? I go to the market is the resut of I will buy butter.
>>
>> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
>> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
>> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>>
>>
>

Posted by tijlan on Tue 11 of Nov, 2008 02:04 GMT posts: 22

> mu'e mi'e tijlan
>

• mu'o

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Tue 11 of Nov, 2008 02:04 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/11 Elias Friedman <skierb27@gmail.com>:
> Or, more correctly, "I need butter, and I have run out of butter" is a
> motive.

In my opinion, "I need butter, and I have run out of butter" can first
motivate the intention "I will buy butter", which can then motivate
the agent to realize the action "I go to the market".

mu'e mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

"I will buy butter" and "I go to the market" can, I believe, be considered
to be parts of one phrase, "I go to the market to buy butter". Such an
action could be motivated, to the best of my knowledge, by "I have run out
of butter, and I need butter".

"I will buy butter" is not by itself a motive.

> > mu'e mi'e tijlan
> >
>
> * mu'o
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

Posted by tijlan on Tue 11 of Nov, 2008 14:06 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/11 Elias Friedman <skierb27@gmail.com>:

> "I will buy butter" and "I go to the market" can, I believe, be considered
> to be parts of one phrase, "I go to the market to buy butter".

It can.

But, cognition-wise, the order should be the other way around: "To buy
butter, I go to the market". You don't go to the market and then
firstly realize that what has motivated the action is the idea "to buy
butter", usually.

> Such an action could be motivated, to the best of my knowledge,
> by "I have run out of butter, and I need butter".

It could.

But you can be precise a few steps further:

The condition "I have run out of butter and I need butter"
motivates the intention "I am willing to buy butter"
which motivates the action "I go to the market.

> "I will buy butter" is not by itself a motive.

As an objectively unrealized future action, no it isn't. But as a
subjectively perceived current idea, yes it is.

This begs the question: Can such a statement "I will buy butter" be
other than a perceptual idea? Can it have factual/historical bearings
at all?

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

"To buy butter, I go to the market" and "I go to the market to buy butter"
are fully synonymous. The order of "to buy butter" and "I go to the market"
has no effect on the sentence's meaning.

A motive is a reason for someone to do something. "To buy butter" is not a
motive, as it is not a reason; it is only the "to do something".

"I am willing to buy butter" is not an intention; it is a personal
condition. An intention would be "I intend to buy butter".

An intention cannot motivate an action, as an intention is not a reason for
someone to do something; it is an intent to do something.

"I will buy butter" is under no circumstances by itself a motive, as such an
action is not a reason for someone to do something.

Posted by tijlan on Wed 12 of Nov, 2008 03:06 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/12 Elias Friedman <skierb27@gmail.com>:

> "To buy butter, I go to the market" and "I go to the market to buy butter"
> are fully synonymous.

They are, linguistically.

> The order of "to buy butter" and "I go to the market"
> has no effect on the sentence's meaning.

Right. My point was that their order is significant cognition-wise. A
personal motive for the action "I go to the market" in this case is a
cognitive phenomenon. The idea "to buy butter" can cognitively
motivate the action "go to the market", just like other ideas such as
"I need butter, and I have run out of butter" can.

An established intentional idea can be internally influential enough
to the point where it motivates you to do something without having you
to question the original reason for that action. Imagine: You notice
you have run out of butter. But you need butter. So you intend "to buy
butter"; you establish this idea. Later, you remember your intention
"I will buy butter", and *that* motivates you to go to the market.
Here you are self-reflectively observing a state in which you once
intended to buy butter. This state is now as objective an item as the
state "I need butter, and I have run out of butter". If the latter
state can be a motive, so can the former too. They are equaly contents
of consciousness by which the agent can be motivated to go to the
market.

> "I am willing to buy butter" is not an intention; it is a personal
> condition. An intention would be "I intend to buy butter".

An intention is a personal condition. You intend something because you
are cognitively/psychologically/neurologically conditioned in a
particular way. You intend to buy butter because your personal
(cognitive) condition is such that you realize you have run out of
butter and you need it. Should the condition differ, your intention
would differ.

I don't see much point in drawing a line between "I am willing to buy
butter" and "I intend to buy butter" for this matter. They are both
statements about an intentional state of "I", and they can both be
contents of consciousness by which, in a self-reflective manner, "I"
can be motivated to do something.

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

The action "to buy butter" cannot be a motive. A motive is something that
causes a person to do a certain thing. The action "to buy butter", by
itself, cannot motivate; "to buy butter" is the "certain thing" for the
person to do. The order of these phrases has no meaningful significance,
and would not, even if one phrase motivated the other.

"I will buy butter" is not an intention; it is a future action.

If someone were to remember his or her intent to buy butter, that would not
be motivation to buy butter; it would simply be a recollection of his or her
intent. The motive would remain as "I have run out of butter, and I need
butter". "I intend to buy butter" cannot be a motive because such an intent
is not a reason for the person to buy butter.

An intention is not a personal condition; it is a course of action that a
person intends to follow.

"I am willing to buy butter" and "I intend to buy butter" have a meaningful
difference. "I am willing to buy butter" expresses willingness; "I intend
to buy butter" expresses intent. "I am willing to buy butter" does not
express an intentional state of "I", it expresses the willingness of "I".
Neither phrase can motivate.

If we are talking about the English word "motive", then it seems that
"to do something" can be a motive. For example, a Google search for
"his motive was to" gives thousands of hits, such as:

his motive was to cover up a politically embarassing problem for his bosses;
his motive "was to rid the world of a few needless illegals."
his motive was to save his own life,
M. Kerviel said his motive was to "make money for the bank"
In fact, his motive was to attract votes from the border states;
His motive was to learn the campaign strategies of

And so on. So generally goals of actions can be the motives of those
actions in English, though maybe the word "motive" is reserved for
more significant goals than a trivial one like "to buy butter".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Wed 12 of Nov, 2008 15:35 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/12 Elias Friedman <skierb27@gmail.com>:
> The action "to buy butter" cannot be a motive.

I didn't say it was an action; I said it was an intention, an idea. We
can be motivated by ideas.

> A motive is something that causes a person to do a certain thing.

.ie

> "I will buy butter" is not an intention; it is a future action.

Is a perceived future action really an action or an idea? When we say
"I will buy butter", are we reporting an action or an idea?

> If someone were to remember his or her intent to buy butter, that would not
> be motivation to buy butter; it would simply be a recollection of his or her
> intent.

And what would happen to them after recollecting their intent?
Wouldn't they *do something* (including "staying in their house")? Is
it impossible to suppose at least that the recollection can motivate
them to re-observe the state "I need butter, and I have run out of
them", which means an intention as an idea *can* motivate?

> The motive would remain as "I have run out of butter, and I need
> butter". "I intend to buy butter" cannot be a motive because such an intent
> is not a reason for the person to buy butter.

"I have run out of butter, and I need butter" as a reason can be
sufficiently referred with "krinu". If you are asked "Why do you go to
the market", you can justify your action with "krinu". It need not be
restricted to "mukti" alone.

"mukti", on the other hand, is more about incentives which need not be
logically (nibli) or rationally (krinu) grounded. As a motive to go to
the market, you can point to a feeling or emotion:

"Why do you go to the market?"
"Because I feel like it." ("My feeling motivates.")

Likewise:

"What does motivate you to go to the market?"
"The idea of going to there." or "My will."

("My will" itself can be motivated by yet another factor, which can
be, in this case, the perception of "I have run out of butter, and I
need butter".)

> An intention is not a personal condition; it is a course of action that a
> person intends to follow.

If koha has a particular course of action that koha intends to follow,
it conditions that koha's future action is likely to be of a
particular one. Koha's intention conditions koha's action. Therefore
an individual intention is an individual condition.

mu'o mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Jorge, the situations you have mentioned in your message are not using
"motive" correctly; in place of "motive", those statements should be using
"action". A motive is a reason for someone to do something; in the
situations you have mentioned, the "to do something
is incorrectly being called a motive.

For example, in the situation "to cover up a politically embarrassing
problem for his bosses", the person's motive is, most likely, the necessity
of keeping his job.

Also, in the situation "to attract votes from the border states", the
person's motive is, most likely, his or her desire to win the election.

A goal of an action cannot be a motive of the same action; however, the
necessity of such a goal's realization can be a motive of the action.

I have also performed a Google search for "his motive was to", and I came
across many results following my definition of "motive"; I saw very few
usages in the manner you described.

tijlan,
It does not matter whether or not you said that "to buy butter" was an
action, as it is an action regardlessly. "To buy butter" is not an
intention. Whether or not one can be motivated by ideas is not relevant, as
"to buy butter" is not a motivational idea.
Whether or not "I will buy butter" is an action or an idea is not relevant;
"I will buy butter" is still not an intention.

If someone recalled his or her intent to buy butter, the intent is not a
motive for the person to recall the state "I have run out of butter, and I
need butter"; rather, the person would be motivated to recall such a state
by his or her desire or need to recall.

"I need butter" is a mukti, as "I need butter" is a motive for an event, the
purchase of butter; "I have run out of butter" is a krinu, as "I have run
out of butter" is the reason for the person's need of butter.

A person's will by itself cannot serve as a motive, as a motive is a reason
for someone to do something.

Although a person's intention can condition his or her action, his or her
intention is not a condition.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Elias Friedman <skierb27@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge, the situations you have mentioned in your message are not using
> "motive" correctly; in place of "motive", those statements should be using
> "action".

If you replace "motive" with "action" in those sentences, the meaning changes:
Compare:

(1) his motive was to attract votes from the border states
(2) his action was to attract votes from the border states

(1) doesn't say that he attracted votes from border states: he did
something else with the goal of attracting votes from the border
states (which goal may or may not have been attained). (2) says that
he did attract votes from the border states.

> A motive is a reason for someone to do something;

Yes, certainly. A motive is whatever moves someone to do something.

> in the
> situations you have mentioned, the "to do something
> is incorrectly being called a motive.

It's the goal that moved them to do whatever it is they did. Here's a
dictionary definition of "motive":

1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a
certain thing, etc.; incentive.
2. the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge.

The examples I gave are all of sense 2.

> For example, in the situation "to cover up a politically embarrassing
> problem for his bosses", the person's motive is, most likely, the necessity
> of keeping his job.

Yes, that's probably part of the chain of motives: in order to keep
their job, they needed to cover up the embarrassing problem, and in
order to cover up the problem, they did whatever it is they did. But
it doesn't matter what the "real" motive behind their action is, the
point is what kind of thing can properly be claimed as a motive. "To
cover up a politically embarrassing problem" is something that can be
claimed as a motive. Whether or not deep down that was the real or
most important motive is a separate issue.

> Also, in the situation "to attract votes from the border states", the
> person's motive is, most likely, his or her desire to win the election.
> A goal of an action cannot be a motive of the same action; however, the
> necessity of such a goal's realization can be a motive of the action.

Here's the context for that quote:

"An Op-Ed article Wednesday on doing away with the office of vice
president indicated that President Lincoln's motive for choosing his
second-term running mate, Andrew Johnson, was to carry Tennessee. In
fact, his motive was to attract votes from the border states;"

Lincoln's action was choosing Johnson as his running mate.
His motive for that action, according to the Op-Ed article, was to
carry Tennessee.
His real motive, according to this other article, was to attract votes
from the border states.

> I have also performed a Google search for "his motive was to", and I came
> across many results following my definition of "motive"; I saw very few
> usages in the manner you described.

The ones I gave were all from the first page of hits, I didn't have to
look hard for them. And I have no problem with your definition. But
for some reason you want to exclude the goals of an action as
something that can move someone to carry out that action.

> tijlan,
> It does not matter whether or not you said that "to buy butter" was an
> action, as it is an action regardlessly. "To buy butter" is not an
> intention.

But "my intention is to buy butter" seems like a normal thing to say.
What is an intention if not something that someone intends to do?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by tijlan on Thu 13 of Nov, 2008 13:30 GMT posts: 22

2008/11/13 Elias Friedman <skierb27@gmail.com>:

> It does not matter whether or not you said that "to buy butter" was an
> action, as it is an action regardlessly.

The fact that the linguistic unit contains a verb does not necessarily
mean its utterer has a factual action in mind. It basically means the
utterer is signifying an *idea* of an action/verb.

> "To buy butter" is not an
> intention. Whether or not one can be motivated by ideas is not relevant, as
> "to buy butter" is not a motivational idea.
> Whether or not "I will buy butter" is an action or an idea is not relevant;
> "I will buy butter" is still not an intention.
> If someone recalled his or her intent to buy butter, the intent is not a
> motive for the person to recall the state "I have run out of butter, and I
> need butter"; rather, the person would be motivated to recall such a state
> by his or her desire or need to recall.
> "I need butter" is a mukti, as "I need butter" is a motive for an event, the
> purchase of butter; "I have run out of butter" is a krinu, as "I have run
> out of butter" is the reason for the person's need of butter.
> A person's will by itself cannot serve as a motive, as a motive is a reason
> for someone to do something.
> Although a person's intention can condition his or her action, his or her
> intention is not a condition.

I'm not going to insist on my point any more. I'm prepared to
interpret "to buy butter" in either way. I'll let usage decide.
English is not even my first language. I have no reason to specify how
Lojban should interact with English.

mi'e tijlan

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.