Received: from mail-ee0-f64.google.com ([74.125.83.64]:41907) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xghwl-0007G1-W3 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:37 -0700 Received: by mail-ee0-f64.google.com with SMTP id b15sf131988eek.19 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=UKYm53st8mqPSEOg6fRXzcUR2yCBlZ8s0LrLXwQ+hmM=; b=uBlx8iAmYyQJ6zl/rqDLh6L5joLwT+16e9rib2UqrqkHZjrxmWM3ZVpt7DXWJFu8c1 tYMqsre9IJRHCbWJr0u5P7PiXjMdv1h7M/LGg/F9xFpoouSgly1par1vAGEUJCSe9Rm7 MAAo7HWVqkcLaHECzSoEoodb+mNKZtpUB+5Nor0sCjaeREWvtx6Aw2ylPvLmPALV82se T4keRFQP+SCwt4dn81q/TYLvqfabiVNhxXzogJEKVc+EDPo4Mmqukhr2wTLrIbnTtmGm K1kIQ9TV8APZ15N3SxjWtDMxdoDF/QhkrUc0YGDM/vp4VcymnOa/prdEOfSF4rrWiZwE 0y8Q== X-Received: by 10.152.20.165 with SMTP id o5mr114lae.39.1413930624682; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.6.5 with SMTP id w5ls109163law.71.gmail; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.21.170 with SMTP id w10mr958776lae.6.1413930623767; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dy7si23927wib.0.2014.10.21.15.30.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::233; Received: by mail-wg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id b13so2478307wgh.10 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.210.167 with SMTP id mv7mr1073931wic.15.1413930623663; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (37-1-174-138.ip.skylogicnet.com. [37.1.174.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id td9sm317440wic.15.2014.10.21.15.30.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5446DE6D.3090307@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:30:05 +0200 From: Ilmen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 References: <20141014010742.GF19061@gonzales> <20141015005542.GC3713@gonzales> <20141018004531.GE20049@gonzales> <20141018180946.GF20049@gonzales> <20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales> <20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales> In-Reply-To: <20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales> X-Original-Sender: ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::233 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060105000206040704020800" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060105000206040704020800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 21/10/2014 03:06, Martin Bays wrote: > Firstly, we need a way to assign an event/fact variable to a proposition > without changing its semantics. {fi'o du} lets us do this; {fi'o du ko'a > broda} means that broda occurs/holds and ko'a is equal to the > event/fact of this. Let's make this a primitive in the logic, writing it > as "=.", so e.g. "{ko'a}=. broda()". (So technically "[term]=." is > a modal operator.) > > (I write the above paragraph as if I'm sure it makes sense, but I'm not. > If there are many events of brodaing in the situation, is {fi'o du ko'a > broda} true when ko'a is any of those events, or only when it's the > "intended" one? The below makes sense in either case, but with subtly > different results. If instead tags work such that {fi'o du ko'a broda} > isn't true for *any* ko'a in such a situation, then there's a problem!) I think you need {ca'e} for assigning a referent to {ko'a} (otherwise it would be an assertion "the bridi is identical to {ko'a}'s referent"), or whatever is the correct way to explicitly assign a referent to a pro-bridi without ambiguity. {fi'o} is maybe a little too vague for your purpose; I'd suggest {broda xoi ke'a ca'e du fo'a} which would be semantically equivalent to {lo du'u broda ku ca'e du fo'a}, if I'm not mistaken. The x1 of du would always be the bridi itself (thus a du'u), and not an event (nu) described by the bridi (the latter could be explicitly obtained by using {nundumu} ). mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o -- 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/d/optout. --------------060105000206040704020800 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 21/10/2014 03:06, Martin Bays wrote:
Firstly, we need a way to assign an event/fact variable to a proposition
without changing its semantics. {fi'o du} lets us do this; {fi'o du ko'a
broda} means that broda occurs/holds and ko'a is equal to the
event/fact of this. Let's make this a primitive in the logic, writing it
as "=.", so e.g. "{ko'a}=. broda()". (So technically "[term]=." is
a modal operator.)

(I write the above paragraph as if I'm sure it makes sense, but I'm not.
If there are many events of brodaing in the situation, is {fi'o du ko'a
broda} true when ko'a is any of those events, or only when it's the
"intended" one? The below makes sense in either case, but with subtly
different results. If instead tags work such that {fi'o du ko'a broda}
isn't true for *any* ko'a in such a situation, then there's a problem!)

I think you need {ca'e} for assigning a referent to {ko'a} (otherwise it would be an assertion "the bridi is identical to {ko'a}'s referent"), or whatever is the correct way to explicitly assign a referent to a pro-bridi without ambiguity.

{fi'o} is maybe a little too vague for your purpose; I'd suggest {broda xoi ke'a ca'e du fo'a} which would be semantically equivalent to {lo du'u broda ku ca'e du fo'a}, if I'm not mistaken.
The x1 of du would always be the bridi itself (thus a du'u), and not an event (nu) described by the bridi (the latter could be explicitly obtained by using {nundumu}).

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o



--
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/d/optout.
--------------060105000206040704020800--