[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu [1]



xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> > If a feast lasts for seven days, it can be seen as happening on
> > seven days. Analogously, if I line up a row of logs side by
> > side and lie on them, I can be seen as lying on (or being
> > located at) each of the logs.
> 
> I'd say {ze'a le djedi be li ze} or {ze'a lei ze djedi}
> and {ve'a lei ze grana}.
> 
> Also {ca le ze djedi} and {bu'u le re grana} would work, yes.

How do you see the difference between them?

> But the sumti of {roi} is for the interval over which the
> number of instances repeat, not for the duration of the event.

Okay. Should that sumti be quantified at all, then? It seems
to me that, logically, it should be something like 
{lo'e du'u ke'a djedi li ze}.

> > > Certainly the more convenient one is the one that allows us to say
> > > "x times per minute/hour/day/etc." directly. 
> > 
> > I agree, but my concern is that "I do it once per minute" does
> > not mean "for every x that is a minute, I do it once". 
> 
> It does mean that, as long as we think of time as divided
> into a series of minutes. It doesn't mean that if we allow
> overlapping minutes, I agree. Is that the objection?

That wasn't my objection, but in fact it is quite a good objection!

But what I meant was that when I say "I clean my teeth twice
a day [or: twice every day]", I don't mean that during every
day I clean my teeth twice. For example, before I was born I
didn't clean my teeth. Now of course Grice means that this
usually wouldn't be a communication problem, but on the whole
I would prefer that what is said is what is meant.

> >Rather, it
> > means, "for every x that is quantity of minutes and during which 
> > I do it, x is a pa mei" or, better:
> > ro da poi de ge mentu ke'a gi jai ca gasnu zo'u du li pa da
> 
> It doesn't mean that either, because if I do it once per
> minute then there are for example many 1.5 minute intervals
> in which I do it once. (There are other 1.5 minute intervals
> in which I do it twice.)
> 
> (One minute is not the duration of each instance. It is the 
> duration of the interval in which the n instances occur.)

You're right. So what *does* it mean, exactly? I think it's
important to work that out, and then to work out the most
elegant way of saying it.

> > Can fi'o take a selbri with sumti, as in {fi'o [broda be ko'a] 
> fo'a}?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If so, then you could formulate {roi} as {fi'o ra'inrapli be li pa
> > fo'a}, and prove your point using that reformulation.
> 
> Yes, that's good, though I think I want to keep the quantifier
> vis-a-vis the rest of the terms in the bridi.

Just to help me get my head round your proposal/argument, could
you essay such a reformulation using fi'o, for my benefit?

--And.