WikiDiscuss

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:40:06 -0800, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:06:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > ma'a klama lo zarci se du'o le du'u la tom cu zvati zy
> > > "We go to the market, knowing that Tom is there.''
> >
> > What bothers me about this example is that there is no reason in
> > the lojban to assume that the knower(s) and the goers are the same
> > people.
>
> I don't see that the translation particularily implies that either,

"X does Y, knowing Z" does not imply that the knower is
the same as the doer?

> but would "given the fact that" make you feel better?

That works for {fi'o fatci}, but {du'o} brings in a knower.

> > The standard use of BAIs requires the BAI-associated selbri to
> > have a free event place for the main event.
>
> That may be true for a few, but it sure as hell isn't true in
> general.

OK, let me rephrase that:

BAIs that have an event or proposition place are relatively
easy to interpret (as long as the place in question is not
taken by the tagged sumti). BAIs that lack any such free
place are not easy to interpret.

> There are many BAI for which the underlying brivla have no
> event places. "tai" comes to mind immediately.

{tai} comes from {tarmysimsa}. Why does it not
come directly from {tarmi}? Because the intention was
that it be used for "like", or "as". If we assume that the
underlying predicate of {tai} is "x1 is like/as x2", then there
is no problem with both x1 and x2 being events.

> > In the case of {djuno}, the x2 is the obvious place for the main
> > event,
>
> djuno2 doesn't take events.

Propositions will work too. "We go to the market" is something
that can be known, or something that can be known about (x2 or
x3 of djuno). It cannot be a knower (x1), and presumably it cannot be
an epistemology (x4).

mu'o mi'e xorxes