From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sun Mar 26 08:29:14 1995
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Sun Mar 26 08:29:14 1995
Subject:      Re: selbri as sumti
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 25 Mar 95 11:20:21 EST.)
Status: RO
Message-ID: <CYyyJHqKopF.A.ibG.Rv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Jorge:
> > But if John goes and then Sophy goes, Sophy's going is a recurrence of
> > going - of lo nu da klama. And your toothbrushing is a recurrence of
> > there being something that you brush, and of there being someone that
> > brushes your teeth, and of there being something that someone brushes.
> > This is what I was getting at.
> I am not convinced. What you call "going" is "the event of someone
> going somewhere from somewhere via some path by some means". Any
> recurrence of this event will involve the same someone, the same
> somewheres the same path and the same means.

I don't take that view. The x1 is an individual event, with, as you
say, determinate sumti, but also with determinate time. The x2
obviously is not the same event, & I don't see why (especially if
we reason from a glico notion of recurrence) it has to be an event
identical to the x1 in all respects other than tense.

> What recurs is an event,
> not the proposition {da klama}, with {da} unbound.

{le duhu da klama} might actually be a rather good way of expressing
the x2. I think you have inadvertently found what I was seeking.

> On the other hand, I do see that the event {le nu da zo'u da klama}
> could recur with different people being {da}. It probably boils down
> to how similar two things have to be in order to be considered
> recurrences. Today's John is similar enough to yesterday's, so we
> have no problem with them being recurrences of the same thing.
> Maybe Sophy's and John's going are also similar enough. But where
> do you stop? Is Sophy's running a recurrence of John's singing?
> After all, they are both recurrences of {lo nu da bu'a}, right?

Exactly. It is the job of the x2 to define the bounds of similarity.

---
And