Re: cenba

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>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.
>--More--
>
>    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.

I have no problem with this, but what we usually want to say is the first one
(the color changes) probably because it is the most clearcut statement of
change.  But I don't like le ka du as a statement of what is changing.
It is not the du-ness of the hair that is changing, it is the hue or some other
aspect of color (skari).

I think I can summarize this thread by saying that what you say seems to work
but feels wrong for reasons I don't seem to effectively communicate.  My own
ideas don't seem to work perfectly, but I am unlikely to come up with better
ones atr my current level of Lojban inactivity.

lojbab