Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:38:20 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <CAO7tK2e-bQu3ce=CjTT9BP=zrna9qYHoS066_z5g9yzDVQtM_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NtwzykIc2mflq5ck"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2e-bQu3ce=CjTT9BP=zrna9qYHoS066_z5g9yzDVQtM_w@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: xance
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--NtwzykIc2mflq5ck
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Tuesday, 2014-11-11 at 19:01 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.c=
om>:

> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > > > 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

Trying again to make sense of this, I came to this as an english
translation:
"Every time I'm hungry, (going marketwards and going home following
going marketwards) occurs".

How did I do?

> > 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.
>=20
> 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.

What's the difference, at a particular time (etc), between {lo nu ge
broda gi brode cu fasnu} and {ge broda gi brode}?

Or indeed, between {lo nu broda cu fasnu} and {broda}?

(Assuming in both cases that {lo} gets the kind.)

(These aren't intended as rhetorical questions; I have little idea what
the semantics of event-kinds should 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
> >
> > 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).
>=20
> And pressumably the kind of broda(x) cannot instantiate broda(x), otherwi=
se
> "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.

Yes, that's always a problem.

> 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"?

I meant it as logical conjunction. The idea was to get the conjunction
inside the quantifier.

> 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:
>=20
> "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".

Certainly that's right if {lo nu broda cu fasnu} is equivalent to
{broda}, and that's all I can currently think of as making sense for
fasnu and event-kinds.

> > 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.
>=20
> 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 marke=
t,
> 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 read the original sentence that way too. But I don't see how to read
your kind-based translation that way. It claims both {ko'e fasnu} and
{ko'o balvi ko'e}, wrapped inside a single event-kind. How does that
force the going to the market (i.e. instance of ko'e) in the former to
be same as the going to the market in the latter?

> I think to get your reading I would have to add an explicit "at least
> once" somewhere.

Martin

--NtwzykIc2mflq5ck
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlRi1iwACgkQULC7OLX7LNapEACfeEuWZHtTqRgvrabd/D4mn7mS
PUIAoJbfju0nQ/Eowz9vMA2amJyRs+5p
=cya0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NtwzykIc2mflq5ck--