Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:44:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802271844.NAA03786@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: kissing (was: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 188871cbf715cd325181387c9e500e53 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 02 13:38:39 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >But klama is different from binxo. Klama has three relevant places, and >binxo only two. This brings up another question I wanted to ask. What >is the proper way of using binxo? > > le bitmu cu binxo lo blabi > The wall becomes something white. > > le bitmu cu binxo le ka blabi > The wall becomes white. > >The gi'uste seems to suggest the first, but I'm unconfortable with it. I would say the first. The second would then be expressed as le bitmu cu binxo lo se ckaji be le ka blabi >It seems that x1 and x2 are referring to the same object, which >would be saying that something becomes itself. You are fiddling around with the "identity" sense of "become". If I become a Frech-speaker, I am still myself. I am then a French speaker too, Have I become myself? There is an implicit time transition in binxo. The x1 is a before-state that may or may not apply afterwards. The x2 (probably) must not apply before the time transition. lojbab