Wiki page BPFK Section: Causation sumtcita changed by rlpowell
> On 6/10/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > It has, in fact never been used as a
> > > > relation so far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > NU's are hardly ever used as relations,
> they
> > > are almost
> > > always used as descriptions, yes, but
> "never"
> > > is a bit
> > > strong.
> >
> > Frinstance?
>
> For instance:
>
>
-----------------------------
> On 4/8/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford
> > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > The suggestion to put it into abstract
> form,
> > > {nu}
> > > > or {du'u}, is a good one except that it
> is
> > > hard
> > > > to see what the appropriate sentences
> would
> > > be;
> > > > what selbri goes with the abstract sumti.
> > >
> > > ko'a nu la suzan klama
> > > i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci
> > > i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e
> > > i la suzan sruma ko'i
> >
> > Nice!
>
This is an example of getting {ko'V} to apply to
abstractions, but not of {du'u} used overtly as a
relation (I forget what the point of the
discussion was — not that it matters here).
>
> ...
> > Ahah! Looking at the other cases makes the
> > definition of {du'u} somewhat clearer since
> the
> > others do not involve linguistic items in the
> > same way. The "bridi" in the definition
> does
> > not refer — as it appears to on first
> reading --
> > to x1, but to inserting the bridi at that
> point
> > in the whole, a convention used for all the
> > abstracts
>
> Right.
>
> > but different from the one used for,
> > say, MOI which indicates the insertion (not
> very
> > well) in a different way
>
> True.
>
> > and several other places
> > where "[]" is used to clarify restrictions on
> > places or on meanings (which is also done
> > elsewhere with parentheses).
>
> True. The gi'uste conventions are not very
> systematic.
>
> > So, while you are
> > reworking cmavo definitions it might be a
> good
> > idea to revise and standardize these
> indicators.
>
> Yes.
>
I would suggest for these cases that are
schematic (abstractors and MOI and MAI and
problably some others) that you give the full
schema: "numbermoi = x1 in the numberth item
member of set x2 ordered by rule x3" and so on
and have a uniform way of indicating what needs
to be suppied to get a meaningful expression. So,
in the instant case "du'u bridi = x1 is the
proposition that bridi as exprssed in the
sentence x2" or some such.