Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141109215830.GB30874@gonzales>
References: <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>
	<CAO7tK2cMwcND87DvyeEmMsrBZYdDuvisLGF-Bj-QmMmpPnMwVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141109215830.GB30874@gonzales>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:01:29 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2e-bQu3ce=CjTT9BP=zrna9qYHoS066_z5g9yzDVQtM_w@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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c832e2bb5105079c6bd9
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11c3c832e2bb5105079c6bd9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

>
> > >     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
>
> But however you want to describe it, there's an element of co-ordination
> between the {ko'e fasnu} and the {ko'o balvi ko'e} which I believe is
> a crucial part of the semantics of the original sentence, but which
> seems to get lost in your kind-based rewriting.
>

Isn't that provided by "ca ro nu mi xagji" though? The claim is that at
each of these times not just that both ko'e fasnu and lo nu ko'o balvi ko'e
cu fasnu, but lo nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'o balvi ko'e cu fasnu.

Depending on how things work, maybe it could be a matter of making the
> translation be:
>     ca ro nu mi xagji kei lo nu mi klama lo zarci kei fasnu je se balvi
>     be lo nu mi klama lo zdani
> (where again we need to add, and can't seem to in lojban, that the {lo
> nu}s are getting kinds)?
>
> I'm thinking that using {je} there be different from using {gi'e} - if
> ko'a is the kind of broda(x), then
> {ko'a brodi je brodu} ~~ {su'o da poi broda cu brodi je brodu}
> {ko'a brodi gi'e brodu} ~~ {su'o da poi broda cu brodi .i je su'o da poi
>     broda cu brodu}
> (where I don't know exactly what the relation between left and right is,
> but probably at least right implies left).
>

And pressumably the kind of broda(x) cannot instantiate broda(x), otherwise
"ko'a brodi gi'e brodu" would directly imply "su'o da poi broda cu brodi
gi'e brodu", so the left and the right correspond to two different
universes of discourse.

I think "je" even in tanru has been taken to be ordinary logical
conjunction (although it gets weird with non-unary predicates), but maybe
tanru "jo'u" or "joi"?

Is "lo nu ko'a broda gi'e brode cu fasnu" equivalent to "lo nu ko'a broda
cu fasnu ,i je lo nu ko'a brode cu fasnu", or does having the conjunction
describing the one event have some significance? Any implicit additional
tense info would not seem to cary from left to right:

"lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko'a broda gi'e brode cu fasnu" is not
necessarily equivalent to "lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko'a broda cu fasnu ,i
je lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko'a brode cu fasnu".

> 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"?
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. The times are (roughly) the same,
> by the semantics of {ca}, so yes they're (roughly) the same time-slices.
> But no extra indication of that is required. I suppose one has to use
> that future-me can't be hungry now.


But I don't see why the same argument that holds for time slices wouldn't
hold for event instances.  If you read the original sentence as allowing
for the possibility that when I'm hungry I may go many times to the market,
but at least one of those times has to be followed by a time of me going
home, then I see your point, but the way I read it there's just one
relevant instance of going to the market and then going home for each time
I'm hungry. I think to get your reading I would have to add an explicit "at
least once" somewhere.

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.

--001a11c3c832e2bb5105079c6bd9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:58 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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style=
:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=
ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =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<br>
&gt; &gt; fasnu<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =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>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0.i ko&#39;o nu mi klama lo zdani=
</span><br>
<br>
But however you want to describe it, there&#39;s an element of co-ordinatio=
n<br>
between the {ko&#39;e fasnu} and the {ko&#39;o balvi ko&#39;e} which I beli=
eve is<br>
a crucial part of the semantics of the original sentence, but which<br>
seems to get lost in your kind-based rewriting.<br></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>Isn&#39;t that provided by &quot;ca ro nu mi xagji&quot; though? T=
he claim is that at each of these times not just that both ko&#39;e fasnu a=
nd lo nu ko&#39;o balvi ko&#39;e cu fasnu, but lo nu ge ko&#39;e fasnu gi k=
o&#39;o balvi ko&#39;e cu fasnu.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-=
left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Depending on how things work, maybe it could be a matter of making the<br>
translation be:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ca ro nu mi xagji kei lo nu mi klama lo zarci kei fasnu je se=
 balvi<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 be lo nu mi klama lo zdani<br>
(where again we need to add, and can&#39;t seem to in lojban, that the {lo<=
br>
nu}s are getting kinds)?<br>
<br>
I&#39;m thinking that using {je} there be different from using {gi&#39;e} -=
 if<br>
ko&#39;a is the kind of broda(x), then<br>
{ko&#39;a brodi je brodu} ~~ {su&#39;o da poi broda cu brodi je brodu}<br>
{ko&#39;a brodi gi&#39;e brodu} ~~ {su&#39;o da poi broda cu brodi .i je su=
&#39;o da poi<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 broda cu brodu}<br>
(where I don&#39;t know exactly what the relation between left and right is=
,<br>
but probably at least right implies left).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>And pressumably the kind of broda(x) cannot instantiate broda(x), other=
wise &quot;ko&#39;a brodi gi&#39;e brodu&quot; would directly imply &quot;s=
u&#39;o da poi broda cu brodi gi&#39;e brodu&quot;, so the left and the rig=
ht correspond to two different universes of discourse.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>I think &quot;je&quot; even in tanru has been taken to be ordinary log=
ical conjunction (although it gets weird with non-unary predicates), but ma=
ybe tanru &quot;jo&#39;u&quot; or &quot;joi&quot;?</div><div><br></div><div=
>Is &quot;lo nu ko&#39;a broda gi&#39;e brode cu fasnu&quot; equivalent to =
&quot;lo nu ko&#39;a broda cu fasnu ,i je lo nu ko&#39;a brode cu fasnu&quo=
t;, or does having the conjunction describing the one event have some signi=
ficance? Any implicit additional tense info would not seem to cary from lef=
t to right:</div><div><br></div><div>&quot;lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko&#39;=
a broda gi&#39;e brode cu fasnu&quot; is not necessarily equivalent to &quo=
t;lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko&#39;a broda cu fasnu ,i je lo nu [tense-opera=
tor-X] ko&#39;a brode cu fasnu&quot;.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:=
1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left=
:1ex"><span class=3D"">
&gt; Or how do you interpret &quot;ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi mi ctigau&quot;=
? Is there<br>
&gt; any indication that the time-slice of &quot;mi&quot; witnessing the fi=
rst &quot;mi&quot;<br>
&gt; is the same time-slice of &quot;mi&quot; witnessing the second &quot;m=
i&quot; of &quot;mi mi<br>
&gt; ctigau&quot;?<br>
<br>
</span>I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re getting at. The times are (roughly)=
 the same,<br>
by the semantics of {ca}, so yes they&#39;re (roughly) the same time-slices=
.<br>
But no extra indication of that is required. I suppose one has to use<br>
that future-me can&#39;t be hungry now.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>But=
 I don&#39;t see why the same argument that holds for time slices wouldn=
9;t hold for event instances.=C2=A0 If you read the original sentence as al=
lowing for the possibility that when I&#39;m hungry I may go many times to =
the market, but at least one of those times has to be followed by a time of=
 me going home, then I see your point, but the way I read it there&#39;s ju=
st one relevant instance of going to the market and then going home for eac=
h time I&#39;m hungry. I think to get your reading I would have to add an e=
xplicit &quot;at least once&quot; somewhere.</div><div><br></div><div>mu=
9;o mi&#39;e xorxes</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 />

--001a11c3c832e2bb5105079c6bd9--