Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:55:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802272355.SAA17107@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: binxo X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: e72ebee6bcff08ea349a2a644f732aa4 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 02 13:41:31 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab: >> le bitmu cu binxo lo blabi >> The wall becomes something white. >> >> le bitmu cu binxo le ka blabi >> The wall becomes white. >> >I would say the first. > >>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? But that's precisely the point. In English "I become a French speaker" does not get translated into Logic as "there is some French speaker x such that I become x". Would you say: mi binxo lo se fraso There is at least one French speaker x such that I become x. Or: mi binxo le ka se fraso I become such that I have the property of being a French speaker. >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. Precisely, but {lo se fraso} is not a state! So if the x2 has to be a state (or better a property) you should say {mi binxo le ka se fraso}. If we were to accept {mi binxo lo se fraso}, then we lose the connection with predicate logic. co'o mi'e xorxes