Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:49127)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBD3mJP3BBoEqRVpCw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RZlLt-0006aK-TY; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:30:11 -0800
Received: by ghbg2 with SMTP id g2sf7193730ghb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:30:03 -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=nm9deGeXBFQvx8sL4ilHy+QwrdVx9SkvqEopM5JgFZA=;
        b=vw8QpKzS4aDN9pWyVeitlsgqlfKOVNutaLvgRCZplRoNhLfhzGMJn8G3Nucane9rHK
         UTvyejAI5llW3DqmmACFrs0cBOnHjAQWSN7K2fFzcZfQCT5GIvrh9ohZwqEyIc2+Rg36
         vqzHYkIFXrLR20peu7SMHiYiHfGxrrS0nqS2A=
Received: by 10.236.189.10 with SMTP id b10mr5749508yhn.3.1323617399566;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:29:59 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.150.47.39 with SMTP id u39ls12353884ybu.0.gmail; Sun, 11 Dec
 2011 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.156.98 with SMTP id l62mr26980645yhk.4.1323617398792;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.156.98 with SMTP id l62mr26980640yhk.4.1323617398774;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f180.google.com (mail-gx0-f180.google.com [209.85.161.180])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s13si5727126ane.3.2011.12.11.07.29.58
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.180;
Received: by ggnq1 with SMTP id q1so6951339ggn.25
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.227.8 with SMTP id rw8mr1801480obc.42.1323617398633; Sun,
 11 Dec 2011 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.182.54.80 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68o7vTy2Sw_QjKEqsAQYEzxD3MAOfQjjSP+oXCMwcoP4eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALMa68qP1rans_GfLQHb7nwthw9w5zJwEfrFr-t+uRP-FXNcMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9Kk6zgouKjRyGGDybPcM49MhLa0Rf5waNML0WPFSymtZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68oGMRUwXbsSWDAyZP3GfDb4dJw7P8b1f5KhF0JEwcPBHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9JeKNdn_i0O84g9KuPxqQqfuNGyZ4Fypf7Bo3t+RLEqeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68p0LrYiHcT3=eSVKMUGLYk8-857pFAGn7+bNoedSWG4MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9+-wgh2ggvNpPCHFv1Q78fB5xwyRN94KZ_G-0trf7LTOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68qPo96nWFvTOC5VFqANoH9WnY-0zyx1FTP9CwHdFK48kQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9JFrUrTdp6-T8s0HKhpiNdFY7ELx-KGDEeNqWD6fq9MJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68o1wE2YQh7TY=HHshFzu1uMmZOQLQg0RWSCO5C3yYG_Ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPAJj9J6t44kM0Pz1YpyQMc8-a8oiwixBVUAMQv6+vrjJHS5JQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68o7vTy2Sw_QjKEqsAQYEzxD3MAOfQjjSP+oXCMwcoP4eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:29:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPAJj9LwS+0=xbYBqsxSWL-Z03i-f5Or=vNgTGqJwuzmhODBLg@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 209.85.161.180 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: /

2011/12/10 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
> On 10 December 2011 08:56, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/12/9 Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>>> Let us consider, for example, the definition of {mrobi'o}
>>> =A0"b1 dies under conditions b3."
>>> =A0{x1 binxo lo morsi x2}
>>>
>>> Where in the lojban definition does it say that {x1 na'e morsi pu lonu =
binxo}?
>>
>> {mrobi'o} may be called a dynamic predicate, which denotes a change of
>> state. This brivla definitely means a shift to je'a morsi, and that
>> shift can be stated meaningfully only if the origin is je'anai morsi.
>> je'anai morsi includes no'e / na'e / to'e morsi. At least one of these
>> states is implied to be true pu lo nu binxo by {mrobi'o}, whether or
>> not the brivla's definition explicitly says so.
>>
>
> Denotes change of state? To which state? {lo ka ce'u je'a morsi}?
> This state is not mentioned in the main bridi.

(But we are talking about implications, right?)

Anything which is morsi is in the state of being positive-dead, je'a
morsi. To say that X becomes morsi is to say that X at some point
begins to be lo je'a morsi, a statement that's meaningful only if X
has previously been lo je'anai morsi.

{mrobi'o} is a rather tricky example of a change of state, because a
death can mean (in addition to the cessation of biological
functioning) existential termination for some people and it would be
difficult to attribute a state (or any property) to nothing if binxo2
could have such a non-referring sumti at all. Other "state brivla"
include:

  sipna -- to be asleep (static state: asleep)
  sipybi'o -- to fall asleep (dynamic state: awake --> asleep)

  djuno -- to know (static state: knowing)
  cilre -- to learn (dynamic state: unknowing --> knowing)

  spoja -- to explode (dynamic state: unexploded --> exploded)

Every dynamic brivla implies {zo'e binxo zo'e}. {cilre ko'a} means {lo
na'e djuno be ko'a cu binxo lo je'a djuno be ko'a}. And one obvious
difference between the two sumti is in the state of djuno be ko'a.

To the extent that {morsi} too is about a state, it would seem
reasonable to think that its dynamic counterpart, {mrobi'o}, is about
a change of state.

{spoja} is interesting, because its x2 is somewhat binxo2. If {lo
jbama cu spoja}, does the bomb cease to exist as its pieces come into
existence, or are they just phases of the same underlying entity?
That's a philosophical question, and the brivla's definition doesn't
require an answer to that.


>>> I understand that the lojban definition is applicable to a small statue=
 that
>>> almost made it to be turned in a live bird by one of McGonagall's pupil=
s.
>>> The English one, not so much.
>>
>> If the resulting object was je'anai / ja'anai cipni, {binxo lo cipni}
>> would be false. And "almost broda" is still na broda.
>>
>
> I am sorry if I was not clear here. I was talking about {e'enai binxo lo =
morsi}
> as describing a statue being transformed in a dead bird. You can also con=
sider
> that it is the turning of a dead frog to a dead bird.
>
>>
>>> You might still use {mrobi'o} instead of {co'a morsi va'o} because you =
understand that the x1 ceased to exist.
>>
>> If by {lo gerku} I meant the biological body of a dog, I could say {lo
>> gerku cu mrobi'o} and mean not that the x1 (the body) has ceased to
>> exist. (If existence required a biological functioning, all non-life
>> would have been non-existent.)
>>
>
> I don't deny that, I am just pointing that the unrealised possibility of =
using
> {co'a morsi}, a very clear expression, creates a pragmatic pressure on th=
e
> interpretation of {binxo lo morsi} as either less (as in the dead bird ex=
ample)
> or more (as in the x1 ceasing to exist interpretation).

{co'a morsi} wouldn't work for the dead bird example unless we assumed
that the statue had been alive. Together with the case of "from a dead
frog to a dead bird", the state of being non-alive is secondary to the
state of being a statue / a bird / a frog that alternate through lo nu
binxo, so {morsi} wouldn't be a relevant description to be used with
{binxo} in the first place. We could talk about whether the statue
existentially co'a morsi as it binxo lo cipni, but the definition of
{binxo} doesn't require an answer to that kind of question.


>>> But this is certainly not the case with many other
>>> lujvo like {jbibi'o}, "approach". If someone, instead of
>>> =A0{ko'a co'a jibni ko'e},
>>> says
>>> =A0{ko'a binxo lo jibni be ko'e},
>>> I would tend to consider ko'a ceasing to exist as a justification for
>>> the introduction
>>> of this new entity "lo jibni". Of course, the fact that binxo2 is
>>> close to ko'e ought
>>> to be important in some way, but a mere approach would not be my first =
guess.
>>
>> In my view: {ko'a poi na'e jibni ko'e} ceases to exist as {ko'a poi
>> je'a jibni ko'e} comes into existence.
>>
>
> It is fine to me that you talk about objects that cease to exist by movem=
ent
> (and not by death), but I don't think you can refer to two different thin=
gs as
> {ko'a} without reassignment. I guess you mean {ko'a} ceases to exist and
> {lo je'a jibni be ko'e} comes to existence, which is fine.

I took into account how people abstract a virtual entity out of
different physical objects. Scientifically speaking, the physical me
at space A and the physical me at space B consist of different matter
that pop up and off in the vacuum every Planck second; so, yes, the
two ko'a above are physically different on the most fundamental level,
I would say. But they are cognitively unified. Human languages are
concerned more with cognition than with physical reality, and I don't
think Lojban is an exception to that.

I consider this difference:

  do barda
  .i do xendo
  .i do se prami

Do these {do} refer to the same thing? The first one is probably
exclusively physical, while the others may not. The referents may be
technically different. But they are unified under the elastic notion
of "the listener" across the sentences (otherwise we would have had to
reassign it with {doi} for each). We can use the same {do} in the same
utterance to refer to things of completely different dimensions of
properties.

Then {ko'a} has its own unifying notion: it-1. Anything that is
congnitively identifiable as it-1 can be represented by the same
{ko'a} without reassignment. The referent may be different bodies of
matter at different spacetime points or even different types of
existence. The existential standard for {do} should and does currently
apply to {ko'a} as well.

  ko'a barda
  .i ko'a xendo
  .i ko'a se prami

If these are allowed without reassignment, surely we don't need
different indexes for the one which is jibni and the one which is not
jibni.


mu'o

--=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.