Received: from mail-wg0-f56.google.com ([74.125.82.56]:60241) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XofAE-0007Wj-3W for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:19 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f56.google.com with SMTP id b13sf1069591wgh.11 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=rasZwNiOzwBwcuHyF8u3vdznuOexaz+rYMXM99xDcrA=; b=t4mrhM8OfK9UiEZniA8388oxzpcouqAcyWlpEDDProEr7Fs+BVjQS0P6yiWWV8xGfo vIPga/hN8KtJyB9HKQo9h5TVwuZ+Xoo/rGTZb5Qs2uROVcyCjtOHxBukkgqIh06Xer/5 NCI+/cRVVy2NyRmGv8TIAqh8Txc67tg/MSegx+JVveacZIOs8EhA4rXx9/bRfWilLrcy CzIVqgVK6RhSiTC+IdhUhmupDQviWEElQ1QCdCVRL7+D4SnyhHeYzpjIwJjaClri8iu8 M2sTzrhgIDHX0OgIAEJV5qh1neuUxxtlZ6ndzB6ornJdz+fwkpcxY7G7zB2Ywf4hePlm swtA== X-Received: by 10.152.170.226 with SMTP id ap2mr396720lac.3.1415826551533; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:11 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.203.202 with SMTP id ks10ls754349lac.72.gmail; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.55.10 with SMTP id n10mr70401lbp.14.1415826550597; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ea4si822468lbc.0.2014.11.12.13.09.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:10 -0800 (PST) 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; Received: by mail-lb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id w7so1370653lbi.5 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.4.229 with SMTP id n5mr41976655lan.1.1415826550448; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.70.111 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:09:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales> References: <20141109145940.GA8588@gonzales> <20141109154145.GC8588@gonzales> <20141109161417.GE8588@gonzales> <20141109192217.GH8588@gonzales> <20141109215830.GB30874@gonzales> <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:09:10 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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=047d7bae43b49a68cc0507afce15 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7bae43b49a68cc0507afce15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Tuesday, 2014-11-11 at 19:01 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Martin Bays 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 > > 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? > I guess it would be "my going ..." because of the "mi": (my going marketwards and my going home following my going marketwards) occurs. (Also "going marketwards" doesn't really mean I reached the market, so maybe "my going shopping" if you don't want to mention markets.). 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.) > I don't suppose there's a lot of difference, although they don't seem to be logically equivalent because "lo nu broda" only makes sense if "broda" describes an event, but not all bridi that can be asserted describe events. I suppose the original question was whether asserting "broda" (when the bridi describes an event) was more like asserting "lo nu broda cu fasnu" or "su'o nu broda cu fasnu", and at least to me the first one seems closer. Just asserting "broda" doesn't really require there to be any events in the universe of discourse. Asserting "lo nu broda cu fasnu" requires there to be an event of brodaing (possibly a kind). Asserting "su'o nu broda cu fasnu" suggests if not requires a number of events, and the claim is just that at least one of them happens, but that seems weaker than the plain "broda" claim. > > 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} - i= f > > > 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). > > > > I think "je" even in tanru has been taken to be ordinary logical > > conjunction (although it gets weird with non-unary predicates), but may= be > > tanru "jo'u" or "joi"? > > I meant it as logical conjunction. The idea was to get the conjunction > inside the quantifier. > Right, but I meant that "ko'a brodi je brodu" is supposed to be equivalent to "ko'a brodi gi'e brodu", at least for unary brodi and brodu, in which case it wouldn't really work to make the distinction. "su'o da poi broda cu brodi gi'e brodu" already has the conjunction inside the quantifier. > 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 allowin= g > > 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 goin= g > > 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? > Only in so far as it's the only relevant instance of my-going-to-the-market around at that time. But I don't think that's actually part of the claim, which doesn't involve instances. Just as a claim in which "mi" appears twice doesn't involve time slices, even though it will be only a time slice that makes the claim true, if you start analyzing it that way. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 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 e= mail 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. --047d7bae43b49a68cc0507afce15 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Tuesday, 2014-11-11 at 19:01 -0300 - Jorge L= lamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.c= om>:

> 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 zda= ni
> > > > -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu .i ko'a = nu ge ko'e fasnu
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0gi ko'i fasnu
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0.i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'= ;e .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0.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 followin= g
going marketwards) occurs".

How did I do?

I guess it would be "= ;my going ..." because of the "mi": (my going marketwards an= d my going home following
my going marketwards) occurs.

(Also "going ma= rketwards" doesn't really mean I reached the market, so maybe &quo= t;my going shopping" if you don't want to mention markets.).
=C2=A0

What's the difference, a= t 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.)

I don't suppose there's a lot of difference, although they don= 9;t seem to be logically equivalent because "lo nu broda" only ma= kes sense if "broda" describes an event, but not all bridi that c= an be asserted describe events.
=C2=A0
I suppose the or= iginal question was whether asserting "broda" (when the bridi des= cribes an event) was more like asserting "lo nu broda cu fasnu" o= r "su'o nu broda cu fasnu", and at least to me the first one = seems closer. Just asserting "broda" doesn't really require t= here to be any events in the universe of discourse. Asserting "lo nu b= roda cu fasnu" requires there to be an event of brodaing (possibly a k= ind). Asserting "su'o nu broda cu fasnu" suggests if not requ= ires a number of events, and the claim is just that at least one of them ha= ppens, but that seems weaker than the plain "broda" claim.

> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ca ro nu mi xagji kei lo nu mi klama lo zarci = kei fasnu je se balvi
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0be 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 b= rodu}
> > {ko'a brodi gi'e brodu} ~~ {su'o da poi broda cu brod= i .i je su'o da poi
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0broda cu brodu}
> > (where I don't know exactly what the relation between left an= d right is,
> > but probably at least right implies left).
>
> I think "je" even in tanru has been taken to be ordinary log= ical
> conjunction (although it gets weird with non-unary predicates), but ma= ybe
> tanru "jo'u" or "joi"?

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

Right, but I mea= nt that "ko'a brodi je brodu" is supposed to be equivalent to= "ko'a brodi gi'e brodu", at least for unary brodi and br= odu, in which case it wouldn't really work to make the distinction. &qu= ot;su'o da poi broda cu brodi gi'e brodu" already has the conj= unction inside the quantifier.

> But I don't see why the same argument that holds for time slices w= ouldn't
> hold for event instances.=C2=A0 If you read the original sentence as a= llowing
> for the possibility that when I'm hungry I may go many times to th= e market,
> but at least one of those times has to be followed by a time of me goi= ng
> home, then I see your point, but the way I read it there's just on= e
> 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 t= o 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 tha= t
force the going to the market (i.e. instance of ko'e) in the former to<= br> be same as the going to the market in the latter?

=
Only in so far as it's the only relevant instance of my-goin= g-to-the-market around at that time. But I don't think that's actua= lly part of the claim, which doesn't involve instances. Just as a claim= in which "mi" appears twice doesn't involve time slices, eve= n though it will be only a time slice that makes the claim true, if you sta= rt analyzing it that way.

mu'o mi'e xorxes=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--047d7bae43b49a68cc0507afce15--