Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54FE2B04.8070302@gmail.com>
References: <54FD915D.4060607@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2fwiV0-UGm41j43Tg8hmP38eai8hg5+bgceJdBiT0qb_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54FE2B04.8070302@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 21:09:17 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cgLGvjQxmvZPUHs2TXR1brzHatqqjEjRSeOpUOZmkGng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {detri}
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b8743f82ad56e0510e3f62b
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: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7b8743f82ad56e0510e3f62b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So, according to you, {detri} is a relation between a timestamp / time
> address, and an event?
>

Yes, or between a date and an event.


> This would be an useful predicate indeed, but that seems to be very
> different from the relation described in the Gimste.
>

A date is a particular point in time, not the name of that point in time. I
don't think the wording of the gimste suggests that detri1 is an expression.


> If {detri} has the meaning you're suggesting, then another predicate is
> necessary for relating a date structure to an event using a specific
> calendar system, or to convert a date structure into a timestamp / pure
> number address.
>

"detme'o"?


> You seem to invest {li} with a great power, greater than what I'd have
> expected.
>

I think all "li" does is get the meaning of an expression constructed
(mainly) out of digits. "li ..." is basically "lo se sinxa be me'o ..."


> It seems that all we know is that {li} is provided with a numeric
> expression, that it must returns a pure number, but that the
> function/algorithm for interpreting the numeric expression is entirely left
> to the context (and there's no way to explicitly provide one using {li}).
> So much more than merely the numeric base is left to the context, it seems.
>

It will usually return a number, because me'o-expressions are expressions
mostly used to refer to numbers, but it could be anything referred to by a
numerical expression. Even if dates are not exactly numbers, they are much
closer to numbers than to text. The same date can be expressed in many
different ways, whereas a text is just an expression that can be used to
refer to something else. A date doesn't refer to something, a date is the
thing we want to refer to.

If so, it becomes difficult to explicitly express which calendar system to
> use for evaluating the li-expression; it seems to me that the speaker would
> need to use an appropriate predicate for precisely stating how to interpret
> the expression, and avoid using {li}.
>

Are we to interpret the two different expressions "2015-03-09" and "March
3, 2015" in different calendar systems, or are they two different
expressions that express the same date in the same calendar system? If the
latter (which is what I think), then it is not an important function of the
calendar system to tell you how to construct (or deconstruct) a date
expression. The function of the calendar system is to tell you what point
in time to use as origin or reference point, and what time units to use to
measure from that reference point.

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.

--047d7b8743f82ad56e0510e3f62b
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 Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ilmen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);borde=
r-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D""><br></span>
    So, according to you, {detri} is a relation between a timestamp /
    time address, and an event? </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes,=
 or between a date and an event.=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquot=
e 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-lef=
t:1ex"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">This would be an useful pr=
edicate
    indeed, but that seems to be very different from the relation
    described in the Gimste.<br></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><div>A =
date is a particular point in time, not the name of that point in time. I d=
on&#39;t think the wording of the gimste suggests that detri1 is an express=
ion.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204=
,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcol=
or=3D"#FFFFFF">
    If {detri} has the meaning you&#39;re suggesting, then another predicat=
e
    is necessary for relating a date structure to an event using a
    specific calendar system, or to convert a date structure into a
    timestamp / pure number address.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
&quot;detme&#39;o&quot;?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-c=
olor:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=
=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">You seem to invest {li} with a great power=
, greater than what I&#39;d
    have expected. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think all &quot=
;li&quot; does is get the meaning of an expression constructed (mainly) out=
 of digits. &quot;li ...&quot; is basically &quot;lo se sinxa be me&#39;o .=
..&quot;</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204=
,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcol=
or=3D"#FFFFFF">It seems that all we know is that {li} is provided
    with a numeric expression, that it must returns a pure number, but
    that the function/algorithm for interpreting the numeric expression
    is entirely left to the context (and there&#39;s no way to explicitly
    provide one using {li}). So much more than merely the numeric base
    is left to the context, it seems.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div=
>It will usually return a number, because me&#39;o-expressions are expressi=
ons mostly used to refer to numbers, but it could be anything referred to b=
y a numerical expression. Even if dates are not exactly numbers, they are m=
uch closer to numbers than to text. The same date can be expressed in many =
different ways, whereas a text is just an expression that can be used to re=
fer to something else. A date doesn&#39;t refer to something, a date is the=
 thing we want to refer to.=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"><div=
 text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    If so, it becomes difficult to explicitly express which calendar
    system to use for evaluating the li-expression; it seems to me that
    the speaker would need to use an appropriate predicate for precisely
    stating how to interpret the expression, and avoid using {li}.</div></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>Are we to interpret the two different express=
ions &quot;2015-03-09&quot; and &quot;March 3, 2015&quot; in different cale=
ndar systems, or are they two different expressions that express the same d=
ate in the same calendar system? If the latter (which is what I think), the=
n it is not an important function of the calendar system to tell you how to=
 construct (or deconstruct) a date expression. The function of the calendar=
 system is to tell you what point in time to use as origin or reference poi=
nt, and what time units to use to measure from that reference point.=C2=A0<=
/div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;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 />

--047d7b8743f82ad56e0510e3f62b--