Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

> >> To put ce'u in there
> >> (unless I put it in all places) is to focus on a particular place as
> >> significant to my apporval.  The statement is NOT that I approve of
> >> the property of beautiful things or the property of people appreciating
> >> beautiful things or the property of  aspects leading to appreciation of
> >> beauty or the property of aesthetic standards being used for such
 recognitio
> >> of beauty.
> >
> >Yes it is.
> >
> >> The statement is appreciation of Beauty, in all of its
> >> ramifications
> >
> >No. That's not how Lojban ka abstractions work.
>
> That is how I use them, and how they have been used since they started.

It is helpful, I think, to distinguish between one's own usage and
what is prescribed. Likewise, it is helpful to distinguish between
usage history and what is prescribed. For example, usage history
contains a lot of sumti-raising, but this runs contrary to the
prescription.

I was reporting the prescription.


> The ONLY way I can see to use ce'u is to put it in ALL the places.

And with no non-ce`u sumti within the abstraction?

Anyway, as far as your own usage goes, that's all well and good,
but if you want to understand and be understood by others, then
getting a feel for ce`u will be necessary. Presumably the
refgram didn't work for you, but hopefully exposure to enough
examples will.

> My understanding is that ka without ce'u ispretty much equivalent to doing so,

Not really, not even by convention of common usage.

> but thatmay be because I do not understand ce'u, NOT because I don't
 understand
> ka.

If you don't understand ce`u then I don't see how you can understand
ka.

> >I suggest:
> >
> >  mi zanru le ka ce`u nu melbi
> >
> >for the meaning you want.
>
> No.  having thought of it, I think the ce'u-in-all-places is more
> valid, because I think of ka bridi as multi-aspectual.

I think both are possible, and subtly different. Which one is
more appropriate depends, I feel, on why exactly you approve
of it.

> What is not clear to
> me is whether ce'u in all places is ENOUGH, or whether we need ce'u in all
> places plus all possible tcita sumti.

How do you mean "all possible tcita sumti"? All possible sumti?
Then I'd have thought that {ka ce`u nu da xi pa da xi re da xi
ci da xi vo melbi} would be necessary for that.

> > >> mi zanru le du'u melbi
> >> >>
> >> >> I approve of the fact that (something is) beautiful.
> >> >
> >> >No. "I approve of the proposition that something is beautiful".
> >> >
> >> >"the fact that" is better rendered by "le nu".
> >>
> >> I disagree, partly because I do not see any difference between the former
> >> and the latter.
> >
> >Facts are true propositions. Propositions can be false. Facts
> >can't.
>
> It sounds like you are saying that we have another bloogy sumti raising here
> and that nu is no better than du'u.  Are you saying that we need
>
> mi zanru lenu ledu'u broda cu jetnu
> or of course
> mi zanru tu'a ledu'u broda
> ?

Well, yes. But I think

     mi zanru lenu ledu'u broda cu jetnu

is pretty much equivalent to

     mi zanru lenu broda

> >x2 of djuno = fact = true proposition.
> >du`u = proposition.
>
> But then here it seems that you are saying that the x2 of djuno must
> similarly be marked:
>
> mi djuno lenu ledu'u broda cu jetnu
>
> because you have said that a mere ledu'u is not a true proposition.
> But then a lenu ledu'u is not a true porposition either.

{djuno ko`a} entails that ko`a is (a) a proposition, and (b)
true.
There is nothing wrong with {ko`a djuno le du`u broda}, but it
claims that (a) ko`a believes le du`u broda, and (b) le du`u
broda is true.

[Yes yes yes I realize that (b) might in fact be a presupposition
rather than a claim, but that's another story.]

> If I approve of something, then I approve of it being a true
> proposition.

That's not *necessarily* so, unless you mean it as a claim about
your personal approval criteria.

> How does zanru differ from djuno?  If I know something, then I know
> that it is a true proposition.

Not exactly: If you know something, then (a) it is true, and
(b) you believe it to be true.

I am not sure why {djuno} was made to be like {know} rather than
{believe}, but that's pretty clearly how things are now.

> >> Disambiguation is not necessary to those of us who appreciate complexity
 %^)
> >
> >If all readings are equally relevant then the addressee may
> >conclude that all readings are intended. That is, that the
> >speaker is actually communicating several different bridi
> >simultaneously with the one jufra.
>
> No.  One bridi.
>
> A complex bridi, to be sure, but using a  logical connective for example
> can turn multiple bridi into one bridi.

OK. I'm not sure anything hinges on this.

> Whne I use ka (without ce'u) I am focussing on relationships, not on things.

See my remarks about distinguishing prescription from personal
usage habits.

> The properties (ka) of a proposition, are to me the relationships that make
> the proposition meaningful.

That sounds interesting, but I don't understand it. Could you
try to say it again?

--And