Re: PLI: lo nu cinba, lo se pixra

[Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>]

> As for whether {da nu} entails {da fasnu} [assuming that states are
> fasnu too], I had always assumed it did, but John tells me it doesn't.
> I think I am gradually coa grocking what nu is supposed to mean, but
> am not wholly sure yet. I thought {nu cinba} meant "a kiss", but I
> am suspecting that it instead is more like "that there is a kiss" (so
> by my original understanding {ci nu cinba} would make perfect sense as
> "three kisses", but by my new understanding it would make little sense
> - "3 facts that there is a kiss"????). The term "event (abstraction)"
> really throws me. It would be much safer to use a lojban word.

All IMHO: I think the term "abstraction" gives a big clue as to what
events are. I don't view an event as an event-as-the-English-speaking-
people-understand-it, but as an *abstraction* of an event. In-mind
entity. When I hear "nu da de cinba" I understand it to mean the image I
get when I visualise da cinbing de. So, {3 nu cinba} is image of 3
cinbings, like, when my mother kisses my grandma, grandpa and uncle, or
when I kiss my stepbrother and stepmother, and she kisses me back but he
doesn't for he is still in the age when he thinks of such things in the
general category designated by "Ugh!" or "Yuck!", or the image of me
giving a friend a birthday kiss for the future three years, even if she
moves away in the meantime. The lost kisses are still events IMHO,
although unrealised. I know this is a load of ramblings, but I don't
know how to write it better. I don't even think about putting it in
lojban.

> > > These problems need not arise with the artistic subject opaque
> > > places, "picture of", "book about" and the like, since it is at least
> > > plausible such things are always about events: Madame X standing
> > > by a table, not just Madame X, for example.  The plausibility thins

Why not? I don't see a photo of me as a baby as a photo of {lenu mi
vreta lo ckana} or {lenu mi zvati lo crane be lo kacma} or {lenu mi
simlu mi} or {lenu mi labyxu'e} or {lenu mi tolmle}. It shows what I
looked like. It shows many things, and to point one of them out just
feels wrong. I did/was all those things, and many, many more, and the
picture shows all that. If I ask you {ti pixra ma} and you answer me any
of the above, I would probably say {bebna danfu}. I just want to know
who is on the damn pixra. And if you tell me, "Well, if you wanted to
know who it was, you should have asked {ti pixra lenu ma co'e}", I don't
know how I'll react, but would most probably answer such a question with
{lo crane be lo kacma} (taking co'e to be {se zvati mi}), just to show
the faulty logic. I am happy with {ti pixra le/lo/lo/lo'e/le'e
gerku}, depending on what you want. Of course, you can't use lo'e on
photos, just paintings. I am happy with that. If you have opacity
problems, solve it any way you wish (I am not very good at those
tech discussions), but, I don't think making x2 an event-only place
is the answer.

.i ti pixra le gerku       I.e. The photographer's dog
.i ti pixra lo gerku       Some dog the photographer saw, but I don't know it
.i ti pixra lo'e gerku     A good painting of a normal dog
.i ti pixra le'e gerku     A painting of the artist's dog

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++)
UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+)
t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r--
!n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out