Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:36268)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBD5w_f2BBoEc-bCOw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RXrRS-00060R-SM; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:36:07 -0800
Received: by ggnk3 with SMTP id k3sf7067519ggn.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=4t/d11XUYlyMSQkazS1FI2H2e21jP1v0eqM+mhjziq4=;
        b=xagVlQoNfAuTH0DEzLFaOQvTUQU5SvmrZp98GniziJ5mByS+cOdAy6SQ9VG8+Gp0a8
         L+EPegLujj4FIEhIMonbodYoETwuTusOTYiUwU50kTPixock0Ow/9h1PCJTspGXFGiKU
         W0G/o1+JaJOu19VjBP/DSsf8o3UiaC7zHPtco=
Received: by 10.236.176.103 with SMTP id a67mr10496264yhm.7.1323164153698;
        Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:53 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.150.43.22 with SMTP id q22ls11931541ybq.7.gmail; Tue, 06 Dec
 2011 01:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.226.16 with SMTP id y16mr7789071ang.12.1323164152911;
        Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.226.16 with SMTP id y16mr7789069ang.12.1323164152895;
        Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f171.google.com (mail-gx0-f171.google.com [209.85.161.171])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n75si7816483yhe.3.2011.12.06.01.35.52
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.171;
Received: by mail-gx0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r4so37149665ggn.30
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.218.100 with SMTP id pf4mr2566372obc.12.1323164152786;
 Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.182.54.80 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 01:35:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68qP1rans_GfLQHb7nwthw9w5zJwEfrFr-t+uRP-FXNcMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALMa68qP1rans_GfLQHb7nwthw9w5zJwEfrFr-t+uRP-FXNcMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:35:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPAJj9Kk6zgouKjRyGGDybPcM49MhLa0Rf5waNML0WPFSymtZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.171 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

2011/12/5 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
> coi
>
> Is there a consensus about the nature of binxo2? I mostly see
> non-properties there, but I am not sure how to interpret that.
>
> I noticed that there was some discussions on the subject long ago,
> but I didn't find any conclusion in favour of the object-object version
> of {binxo}.

coi .asiz.

It's clear at least to me that binxo1 and binxo2 are not attributive
properties and are related in terms of cenba2. binxo1 corresponds to
cenba1. While {cenba} expresses a change of the x1 in some property
and makes no reference to the resulting entity, {binxo} does say what
the x1 transforms into but without specifying the properties in which
the change occurs.

{binxo} is also comparable to {galfi}. binxo1 & binxo2 correspond to
galfi2 & galfi3:

ri'a lo nu lenku kei lo djacu cu binxo lo bisli

lo nu lenku cu galfi lo djau lo bisli


mu'o mi'e .tijlan.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.