Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:19:01 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141113021901.GM15728@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c4wz288QHQ9r7gxBQqN=ccjyD71NyhTLdO7huAO9N-vQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RNRUMt0ZF5Yaq/Aq"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2c4wz288QHQ9r7gxBQqN=ccjyD71NyhTLdO7huAO9N-vQ@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: -


--RNRUMt0ZF5Yaq/Aq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Wednesday, 2014-11-12 at 18:09 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail=
=2Ecom>:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Tuesday, 2014-11-11 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > 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

> > > 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 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?
>=20
> Only in so far as it's the only relevant instance of my-going-to-the-mark=
et
> around at that time. But I don't think that's actually part of the claim,
> which doesn't involve instances.

Yes. So the kind-based translation falls, incorrectly, on the first side
of the dividing line you drew above - it allows for, and appears to
involve, two goings shopping for each hungering (ignoring that
pragmatics might, in this particular case, lead us to assume that
they're equal).

I don't see how to fix this, if the {je} approach doesn't work.

> 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.

And just as the time-slices (i.e. times) involved might be different,
yes.

Martin

--RNRUMt0ZF5Yaq/Aq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlRkFRUACgkQULC7OLX7LNa5/QCeJfhCZ5DNyEs4xsou6Zt8E7EH
99cAnAzZDBVzFzz3jWf4I987tR1XZZrx
=7DDG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RNRUMt0ZF5Yaq/Aq--