Re: cenba

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

>>        le se tirna cu cenba le ka ce'u voksa makau
>>        The thing heard changes in whose voice it is.
>
>This seems to beg the question.  If I had phrased it more specifically, it
>would have seemed redundant.
>
>      le voksa poi se tirna cu cenba ma

        i go'i le ka ce'u voksa makau
        It changes in whose voice it is.

It may seem redundant, but that doesn't make it wrong.

 >le voksa be makau
>is a change in whose voice it is which as a change seems like a total
>replacement, whereas
>
 >le klama be makau
>is a change to the destination, but is not a change to who goes.

I hope you mean {le ka voksa makau} and {le ka klama makau}.
Otherwise, if you start using {kau} outside of an abstraction
you'll have to explain what it means.

 >I'm not sure, but I think this inalienability, which is not directly
marked in
>Lojban (except when we use po'e, and even there I am not sure it is always
>clear) that makes a formulation of cenba in the way you are doing it seem
>odd.

Let's consider these examples:

    le selska be le kerfa be la djan cu cenba le ka ce'u du makau
    The colour of  John's hair changes in what it is.

    le kerfa be la djan cu cenba le ka ce'u skari makau
    John's hair changes in what colour it is.

    la djan cenba le ka ce'u se kerfa lo skari be makau
    John changes in what colour his hair is.

What is it that changes? Is it the colour? Is it the hair? Is it John?
All of them change. The colour changes most drastically of all,
it is replaced by another colour. The hair changes a little less
drastically, since its colour is an important property but it isn't
its identity. John also changes, though even less dramatically.
And of course we need not stop there. If Mary is John's wife,
we might add:

     la meris cenba le ka ce'u speni lo se kerfa be lo skari be makau
     Mary changes in what is the colour of her husband's hair.

This property may not seem very significant without more context,
but that doesn't mean that the sentence doesn't make sense.
It does. I agree that in general, the closer the property the more
likely it is that we may want to talk about it changing, but we still
can talk about changes in more remote properties.

co'o mi'e xorxes