Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:50:13 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141118025013.GB7769@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <20141113021901.GM15728@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dsqTvWCkR2ZLfgbefKt5b_iQG6uEeM2taMvwEqENVMyg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mxv5cy4qt+RJ9ypb"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2dsqTvWCkR2ZLfgbefKt5b_iQG6uEeM2taMvwEqENVMyg@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: brito
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: -

--mxv5cy4qt+RJ9ypb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Thursday, 2014-11-13 at 20:30 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gma=
il.com>:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > Yes. So the kind-based translation falls, incorrectly, on the first sid=
e
> > 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).
>=20
> I don't think in the kind-reading there are any other goings shopping oth=
er
> than the one kind, so there are no two that could be equal or unequal.

Aside:
    The kind "going shopping" isn't a going shopping, surely?

    That there's no easy way in lojban to differentiate between going
    shopping and goings shopping is a real problem, I feel.

Is claiming that an event-kind occurs at a particular time not
equivalent to claiming that an event instance of the kind occurs at that
time?

Could you clarify something else for me about the kinds translation:
if ko'a and ko'i are event-kinds, does {ca ko'u ko'a balvi ko'i} imply
{ca ko'u ko'a .e ko'i fasnu}?

If so, why also explicitly declare ko'a to fasnu? But if not, I think
the kinds translation's meaning might be quite different from that
I attribute to the original sentence.

Also if so, actually - I wouldn't understand {ca ko'u broda gi'e ba bo
brode} to imply that {ca ko'u brode}, but rather that {ca ko'u ba
brode}.

> Another point against the quantifier reading is that if you change ".e ba
> bo" to "na .a ba bo", then we would seem to need to change "su'o" to "ro"
> in the quantified expansion: "ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci na =
.a
> ba bo lo zdani" -> "ca ro nu mi xagji kei ro da poi nu mi klama lo zarci
> zo'u ga nai da fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani" or something like that,
> whereas with the kind-reading you use the same expansion "ca ro nu mi xag=
ji
> kei ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ga nai ko'a fasnu gi ba ko'a mi
> klama lo zdani".

Interesting. So this is like a literal translation of "if I go to the
market, after going to the market I go home", analysing "going to the
market" as a reference to a kind rather than as a reference to a witness
going in the antecedent?

So you now prefer this approach to your previous suggestion of using
{nu na broda} when analysing {broda .i [jek] [tag] bo brode}?

So I guess this kind of reasoning would have
{broda .i je nai ca bo brodo} mean something like "broda occurs, but
broda never occurs simultaneously with brodo"? Whereas I would have
expected it to mean something more like "broda occurs some time when
brodo doesn't".

> > I don't see how to fix this, if the {je} approach doesn't work.
>=20
> I'm not opposed to giving "broda je brode" a different meaning than "brod=
a
> gi'e brode". Technically "broda je brode" is an atomic predicate in FOPL
> terms.

Yes. I think we already agree on one difference: {broda je brode da} has
the quantifier in outermost scope, unlike {broda gi'e brode vau da}.

Martin

--=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.

--mxv5cy4qt+RJ9ypb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlRqs+UACgkQULC7OLX7LNZCBgCg3YFz1WVXlNM2Js3dq4nFptBw
V2wAnRBwGQMzb+gob1i56q9o2qtqscxM
=UlDZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--mxv5cy4qt+RJ9ypb--