Re: TECH: input on gismu place structures

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

mi'e djan. kau,n
.i la lojbab cusku di'e

> sarcu - JCB's 1975 equivalent appears to have a du'u (neither nu nor
> object) defined for x1 (though he had no real way to express a du'u).

I read L1 4th ed. pp 198-99 as meaning that JCB believes that all indirect
statements are in fact event descriptions in Loglan.  This is a defensible
position, but one which I believe leads to more confusions than it is worth.

> It appears in any case that x1 is a sumti raising, but should the type
> of abstraction be limited to a du'u?  (I am coming to think of a du'u
> abstract as a second order abstract:  ledu'u broda = lenu lenu broda cu
> fatci - with the implication that any other abstract is a sumti raising
> from a du'u place)
>
> His wording: x1 is a factually necessary condition for event/process x2

I do not think that a du'u is required here.  An event may be necessary for
another event; likewise an object may be necessary for an event without any
raising: soil is necessary for the event of a tree growing (except in
Brooklyn).


Re: sidbo.  I second Nick's remarks, and I think specifically that the
"Portuguese concept of beauty" is specifically:

        le sidbo be zo melbi bei loi porto
        the concept of "beautiful" as-thought-by the-mass-of Portuguese-things.

or by the same token

        le si'o melbi kei be loi porto
        the concept-of something-being-beuatiful as-thought-by etc.

using the related "si'o" abstractor, whose place structure is "x1 is a
concept of <bridi> in the mind of x2".  Note the mandatory "kei".

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now