Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52E4544C.4080702@gmx.de>
References: <CALMa68r_+2Ys6K46nuQNUDUn2ZdWwnE5_BdP9ETVdseUvm3H1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E449FD.90002@gmx.de>
	<CALMa68r7X68wfitLXK-2KfSm_NLnPLgkujxSqstCH3JBMZE+xA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52E4544C.4080702@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:08:45 -0200
Message-ID: <CALMa68oBv3WtVX5BECchfbbnXSBrOu8TS-yva6z1Yva2ApJQgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] {binxo}
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd7581e9e787904f0d53bbe
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--047d7bd7581e9e787904f0d53bbe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 25 January 2014 22:18, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> Sure, {co'a} is often enough, and I use it a lot myself. It just lacks the
> sense of transformation that I get from {binxo}.
>
> I would say that {ro nu binxo lo ka broda cu nu co'a broda .i ku'i na ku
> ro nu co'a broda cu nu binxo lo ka broda}. That is, to me, {binxo} is about
> an experiencer undergoing a change (where experiencer should be understood
> loosely in the thematic role sense. Certainly a binxo1 need not be
> sentient); it is making a claim specifically about the binxo1. {co'a} on
> the other hand just says that some event starts to occur, with no focus on
> any of its parts. That's why I don't consider them the same, but as I said,
> {co'a} is always true when {binxo} is, though not vice-versa. The
> difference is often subtle or completely invisible, but sometimes it isn't.
>
>
Hmmm... How would you compare then property-binxo and {co'a} to {co'arkai}?
I feel that your experiencer has just a special place in the discourse, but
otherwise no distinctive ontological characteristic...

I do agree that object-binxo has a distinctive sense of transformation,
which to me is to say that an object either comes to existence or ceases to
exist. That is not only about ontological commitment (to me, you may divide
the world in objects in more than one way), but it has implications on how
you can use the objects in other sentences, for example, and it always has
a salient rhetorical effect.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--047d7bd7581e9e787904f0d53bbe
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote">On 25 January 2014 22:18, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</s=
pan> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Sure, {co&#39;a} is often=
 enough, and I use it a lot myself. It just lacks the sense of transformati=
on that I get from {binxo}.<br>

<br>
I would say that {ro nu binxo lo ka broda cu nu co&#39;a broda .i ku&#39;i =
na ku ro nu co&#39;a broda cu nu binxo lo ka broda}. That is, to me, {binxo=
} is about an experiencer undergoing a change (where experiencer should be =
understood loosely in the thematic role sense. Certainly a binxo1 need not =
be sentient); it is making a claim specifically about the binxo1. {co&#39;a=
} on the other hand just says that some event starts to occur, with no focu=
s on any of its parts. That&#39;s why I don&#39;t consider them the same, b=
ut as I said, {co&#39;a} is always true when {binxo} is, though not vice-ve=
rsa. The difference is often subtle or completely invisible, but sometimes =
it isn&#39;t.<div class=3D"im">
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmmm... How would you compare th=
en property-binxo and {co&#39;a} to {co&#39;arkai}? I feel that your experi=
encer has just a special place in the discourse, but otherwise no distincti=
ve ontological characteristic...<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>I do agree that object-binxo has a distinctive se=
nse of transformation, which to me is to say that an object either comes to=
 existence or ceases to exist. That is not only about ontological commitmen=
t (to me, you may divide the world in objects in more than one way), but it=
 has implications on how you can use the objects in other sentences, for ex=
ample, and it always has a salient rhetorical effect.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o<br>mi&#39;e .asiz.<br></div></div></div>=
</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--047d7bd7581e9e787904f0d53bbe--