Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

Nick says:
<<
And the distinction doesn't look all that convincing any more, now that I
stated it like that: is it that you can like someone without necessarily
liking something they do? Anyone want to come to the rescue? We had extensive
reasoning of this sort going on last year.

>>

"I like flowers"
What event are the flowers doing such that I like them in this sentence?
Is it even an event (rathert than a property)?  More important, is the fact
that we like something implicitly -AT A LINGUISTIC LEVEL (as opposed to a
cognitive one) - mean that we can identify an event/property that the flowers
are involved in that is what we like.  At best we could say
mi nelci leka da xrula

Now, does this work for "I like you"

mi nelci leka da bi do
is the best I can come up with that matches the pattern.

(I note in saying this that I am treading close to the as-yet-unresolved
discussion with Randall Holmes on "me" and sets.)

I don't like any predication that forces us back to "bi" in Lojban unless
the essence of the claim is identity, and I am not sure that is true
for the latter one.  The alternative is

mi nelci leka do zasti
and I am not sure this means the same thing as
mi nelci do

and la cevni help us if we want to say that we like unicorns - we
twist ourselves into the sisku issue again.

The intent with "pluka" IS more specific to an event.  I can like someone
or something and still not be pleased with them  (I'm a parent; need I say 
more.)  But it is not them that I am displeased about in this case, but 
something that they did.


Just as a safety check - in case someone thinks we DO need to make
nelci take a property or event:  what is the difference between this
"prami"/"xebni" which are not unrelated to "nelci".   We deny the linguistic
capability to say "I love you" without meaning something rather more intricate.
My instincts tell me that these emotions are reactions to things rather
than events, and can be applied to events only when theyt are objectified as
an abstract 'thing'.

I hope that this has suitably muddied the waters

lojbab