Re: abstractor place structures

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

cu'u la lojbab
>However, the gismu list is also baselined and is "correct by definition".
>In this case we have clearly stated that the x1 of klani is a ni, the x2
>of lifri is a li'i, etc.

Fortunately the gismu list does not state at all that the x1 of klani
is a ni:

 >>klani         lai  quantity                                  x1 is a
quantity
>>quantified/measured/enumerated by x2 (quantifier) on scale x3 (si'o

{ni} is not even mentioned in the definition.



>I think I need to put up the place structures of the various defining gismu
>for the abstractors so we are clear why they attribute to particular places
of
>those gismu.
>
>>ckaji         kai  quality                                   x1 has/is
>>characterized by property/feature/trait/aspect/dimension x2 (ka)
>
>x2 is pretty much the definition of "ka".

I agree that the x2 of ckaji is sort of paradigmatic for {le ka broda}
terbri,
but I wouldn't say it gives a definition of ka. There are some ka broda
that are not se ckaji. For example, if {no da cu xarju je vofli}, then {no
da
cu ckaji le ka ce'u xarju je vofli}, and therfore {le ka xarju je vofli} is
not
a ckaji.

>>fasnu         fau  event                'happen'             x1 (event) is
an
>>event that happens/occurs/takes place
>
>x1 defines "nu"

Is every {le nu broda} a fasnu? Can I say something like:

            mi pu pacna le nu la djan cu klama
            i ku'i le nu la djan cu klama na fasnu

            I hoped that John would come, but it didn't happen.

 I would say that there's nothing wrong with that, so that just as not
every ka broda is a se ckaji, also not every nu broda is a fasnu.

>>klani         lai  quantity                                  x1 is a
quantity
>>quantified/measured/enumerated by x2 (quantifier) on scale x3 (si'o
>
>x1 defines "ni"

 If that were so, the x3 of klani would be a redundancy, because
ni-quantities come with their scale included. I find very useful the
concrete interpretation for the x1 of klani.

>>lifri lif fri      experience           'life'               x1
>>[person/passive/state] undergoes/experiences x2 (event/experience)
>
>x2 defines "li'i"

Does {mi lifri le nu mi klama le zarci} say something different from
{mi lifri le li'i mi klama le zarci kei be mi}?

>>sidbo sib     si'o idea                                      x1 (idea
>>abstract) is an idea/concept/thought about x2 (object/abstract) by thinker
x
>
>x1 defines "si'o"

How I miss actual examples with these definitions! Would it work like this:

        le si'o mi'o klama le zarci cu sidbo mi'o joi le zarci mi
        The idea of us going to the market is an idea
        about us and the market that I have.

Would the x2 of sidbo always have to be one or more of the internal sumti
of the x1 abstraction? Would it mean something different using {du'u}
instead of {si'o} as the x1?

 >>                lei va mlatu cu klani li paci le ka kancu
>>                Those cats are in quantity 13 as counted.
>
>Why not just use kancu as the selbri?

Because it has a place x1 for the counter which I didn't want.

>>                le rismu poi mi te vecni cu klani li ci le ka ki'ogra
>>                The rice that I bought amounts to 3 in kilograms.
>>
>>                le rismu poi mi te vecni cu klani li repivoso le ka rupnu
>>                The rice that I bought amounts to 2.49 in pesos.
>
>You could use merli for both of these.

I don't know if a price can be measured, but better yet, I could
have used {ki'ogra} and {rupnu} directly. I was just giving
examples of how {klani} could be used with a concrete object
in the x1 place. When there is already a word for the scale, as
in those cases, of course it is simpler to just use that word.

>>But when we need to create a new measure word, we have to
>>base it on {klani}. For example:
>>
>>               le sakta cu klani li ci le ka se kabri
>>               The sugar amounts to three in being cupped.
>
>le sakta cu se merli li ci le se kabri ckilu
>The sugar is measured to be 3 on the be-cupped scale.

You need a fi and a fo there. But I don't want to talk about
someone doing measurements. I want a word like mitre,
grake, and all the other measure words that don't talk of
a measurer.

>>I don't know what gismu we would use to form new measure words
>>if a klani is not a concrete object.
>
>ckilu, gradu, merli were intended for these purposes.

How? ckilu and gradu have no place for the object, and merli
has the measurer place. It wouldn't seem right that no new measure
words could be formed with the same place structure of all gismu
measure words. {klani} as defined seems like the right word from
which to form such lujvo.

 >The gismu listy is baselined, and you will note in the refgrammar that the
>gismu list actually overrides the refgrammar in case of conflict.  We don't
>"clean it up" unless the gismu list is unlcear or self-conflicting.  (For
>example, I am sure x2 of merli is not a ni or a li - I tended to be
explicit
>for these, but "quantity" is ambiguous tp spme people vs "quantifier", and
>perhaps "quantity abstraction".

It seems clear to me that the x2, x3 and x4 of merli are just like the
x1, x2 and x3 of klani respectively. A concrete object, a number and
a scale.

co'o mi'e xorxes