Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::232;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141109192217.GH8588@gonzales>
References: <20141108220257.GA31242@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2d3A84Syh_MROXxHBH3vXqyUaoN3sm04S7PQX8sRRS9DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141108232204.GB31242@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cb+_1bjJfzJ-u7ND6sHqvd2LokXOVbZq8JU=DkvCDhVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141109145940.GA8588@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cC3=U+tHpEAzbp4kfAFq1t-v-RPQzY117cqMJcLsD8_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141109154145.GC8588@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2fooFcWx0=_MVpxG5WCyswKUoymqmiqoS-y5nswbq1htw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141109161417.GE8588@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2ftKhe2Jresn1dfpjOv1GKXnwBjMAmxpY7_4aBQ9TBKEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141109192217.GH8588@gonzales>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 17:46:34 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cMwcND87DvyeEmMsrBZYdDuvisLGF-Bj-QmMmpPnMwVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@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=047d7b86dada42acb10507732411
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7b86dada42acb10507732411
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

>
> OK.
>
> This seems like a rather baroque solution!
>
> What's the advantage of adding this layer of indirection?
>

I don't think I'm adding any layers. All I'm saying is that a bridi refers
to one thing rather than to a whole family of things.

One thing which seems like a clear disadvantage to me:
> e.g. in this example
>     ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
>     -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu .i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i
> fasnu
>         .i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'e .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
>         .i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani
> , there's still no specific indication that the instance of ko'e
> witnessing {ko'e fasnu} is the same as the instance of {ko'e} witnessing
> {ko'o balvi ko'e}. The only connection is that they're both meant to
> happen at around the same time.
>

You introduced instances of ko'e in your indirect metalinguistic
interpretation, but no instances of ko'e are required to interpret the
sentence. In the direct interpretation there's just ko'e. You check whether
ko'o and ko'e satisfy balvi( , ) at the right time, not that any new entity
called intance of ko'e satisfies it. Or how do you interpret "ca ro nu mi
xagji kei mi mi ctigau"? Is there any indication that the time-slice of
"mi" witnessing the first "mi" is the same time-slice of "mi" witnessing
the second "mi" of "mi mi ctigau"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.

--047d7b86dada42acb10507732411
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
</div></div>OK.<br>
<br>
This seems like a rather baroque solution!<br>
<br>
What&#39;s the advantage of adding this layer of indirection?<br></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t think I&#39;m adding any layers. All I&#=
39;m saying is that a bridi refers to one thing rather than to a whole fami=
ly of things.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
One thing which seems like a clear disadvantage to me:<br>
e.g. in this example<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e b=
a bo lo zdani<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -&gt; ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko&#39;a fasnu .i ko&#39;a=
 nu ge ko&#39;e fasnu gi ko&#39;i fasnu<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 .i ko&#39;i nu ko&#39;o balvi =
ko&#39;e .i ko&#39;e nu mi klama lo zarci<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 .i ko&#39;o nu mi klama lo zdani<br>
</span>, there&#39;s still no specific indication that the instance of ko&#=
39;e<br>
witnessing {ko&#39;e fasnu} is the same as the instance of {ko&#39;e} witne=
ssing<br>
{ko&#39;o balvi ko&#39;e}. The only connection is that they&#39;re both mea=
nt to<br>
happen at around the same time.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You int=
roduced instances of ko&#39;e in your indirect metalinguistic interpretatio=
n, but no instances of ko&#39;e are required to interpret the sentence. In =
the direct interpretation there&#39;s just ko&#39;e. You check whether ko&#=
39;o and ko&#39;e satisfy balvi( , ) at the right time, not that any new en=
tity called intance of ko&#39;e satisfies it. Or how do you interpret &quot=
;ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi mi ctigau&quot;? Is there any indication that the=
 time-slice of &quot;mi&quot; witnessing the first &quot;mi&quot; is the sa=
me time-slice of &quot;mi&quot; witnessing the second &quot;mi&quot; of &qu=
ot;mi mi ctigau&quot;?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xor=
xes</div><div><br></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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<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/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7b86dada42acb10507732411--