Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:33250)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDvlZT3BBoEh2IsIg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RZpVp-0007gq-MJ; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:43 -0800
Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3sf7808811yen.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id
         :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to
         :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=jY9Ek/0E+XzZUl0Y5TLej476jKzRvnj1wiNH6c5qn8U=;
        b=orMRyjhJgRD0UeftQahs9AnF7+mAAszEJiAKBZZS7dka2voRJ46S7XVeOhEWdlZN50
         jHudoc+CALJTrqugT8Cs//XDjHGEhigNCEW428RBeSCfp0lEqVdRa4o7atpA8cJiZ1U+
         o5JtExLd3L5zouepIOXsktxBC+npZ9cL1DogE=
Received: by 10.236.193.7 with SMTP id j7mr5825806yhn.16.1323633391532;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:31 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.150.245.19 with SMTP id s19ls13074208ybh.5.gmail; Sun, 11 Dec
 2011 11:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.82.16 with SMTP id j16mr4871293anl.1.1323633390815;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.82.16 with SMTP id j16mr4871291anl.1.1323633390794;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm27-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm27-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.236.227])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id i18si1614294yhj.7.2011.12.11.11.56.30;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.227 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.227;
Received: from [66.94.237.196] by nm27.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Dec 2011 19:56:30 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.125] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Dec 2011 19:56:30 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Dec 2011 19:56:30 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 486414.24767.bm@omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 54586 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Dec 2011 19:56:30 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: OvCcTZsVM1kYxcK6sdrffGIRXwcA9EBrnv9PAS6C9v3LM.F
 9.jR5TFHLE_XPHkmu9Oy6P5cgPXcf.SOkLw3Hlxbqzp0v1wudb7wimcEPXf0
 QQKw3IK3zRfMQn6vFfvKc4YFM._oPRKpOXHeSnkEnOMN1XNDS6BUUOZ_UAJM
 fVvU30Ggd6N4x9RzNV0cldtRQ.6A8nxsbHql7xeUKySxQu_ZocCdFH_vvVCJ
 MtiNSlaVuiEai1YZ4Ts5KoEXGSmbt2kpQeFD3X7cmWZ0Fz92Yu9Ljx5ORI8e
 GIE612Cbxy5C0Zpg4UCoVn6Ek8iQWF5zkQBSlpdb3ZVQ1YuL58TA7QHAaq1M
 N_PJT5RhtcwWlI.A0y.BNlVDVvYwB90TsIoe7_KwlrdEw5z8EzI6G86JM85X
 ZxihOM6Cco8llgTAmZxFI.wO.42Pfw3RRyaOsrpbRp0BdLXEQFFOnAftss.3
 rGVbQMf148WzAkxNNexRUDWHwMUf5Copy5R4l_g._nVdCKzv3JFn1jl.pOcQ
 uJIqGhQ.OfS.VAGP5nkiD4lDkbi3epD6mrNKL_kdh
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:30 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/589 YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698
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> <CAPAJj9LwS+0=xbYBqsxSWL-Z03i-f5Or=vNgTGqJwuzmhODBLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1323633390.53494.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:56:30 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <CAPAJj9LwS+0=xbYBqsxSWL-Z03i-f5Or=vNgTGqJwuzmhODBLg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.227
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
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: /

Thank you.  A nice exposition of what is at stake here in vocabulary and of=
 the=20
irrelevance of metaphysics (here -- but also generally).  My crack about=20
Thomists, was intended to point to the long history of that sort of discuss=
ion=20
-- since at least the 6th century BCE -- and its basic unsolvability (i.e.,=
 its=20
philosophical nature).  (The Eucharist was probably a bad choice, since it =
works=20
backwards: the substance changes but the accidents remain the same).



----- Original Message ----
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 9:29:58 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

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}
>>>  "b1 dies under conditions b3."
>>>  {x1 binxo lo morsi x2}
>>>
>>> Where in the lojban definition does it say that {x1 na'e morsi pu lonu=
=20
>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=
=20
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=
=20
>>>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=20
example)
> 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
>>>  {ko'a co'a jibni ko'e},
>>> says
>>>  {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=
=20
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=
=20
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at=20
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--=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.