Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:03:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802281903.OAA18768@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: Re: binxo X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 51fb14a879226b8f051d8c043ab95683 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 02 13:44:47 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Lojbab: >>Would you say: >> >> mi binxo lo se fraso >> There is at least one French speaker x such that I become x. > >Which is one reason why I do not accept that as a translation of your >Lojban. Ok, would you say: da poi se fraso zo'u mi binxo da There is at least one French speaker x such that I become x. >>If we were to accept {mi binxo lo se fraso}, then we lose the connection >>with predicate logic. > >Oh come on. This sounds like inferring that djuno would require a metaphysics >place to be talking about truth implies that I think that a predicate with >such a place cannot exist. What? I don't understand what you're saying. I don't see the connection, nor do I see why there would be such implication in any case. >Are you claiming that such a statement is not >covered by predicate logic? Not at all. "I become a French speaker" can certainly be covered by predicate logic. The question here is how is it covered? One way is with a simple predicate broda = "x1 becomes a French speaker", then we have: {mi broda} = "I become a French speaker". I don't think we disagree about that. For example broda could be {selfrasybi'o}. Another way is with a predicate brode = "x1 acquires property x2". Then we have {mi brode le ka se fraso}. Again, I presume we don't disagree there. Brode could be {cpacu}. Now, is it possible to have a consistent predicate brodi = "x1 becomes x2" where x1 and x2 are objects? Maybe it is possible, but I see a lot of complications if we take predicate logic seriously. Of course there's no problem if we don't mind being a bit sloppy. >mi binxo lo se fraso means "I become a French speaker". >mi binxo le ka se fraso means "I become a specific-in-mind-property of >French speakers" and seems quite strange to me. Right, that's why I said the wording of the gi'uste suggested the first. As you say, your wording for the property version is quite strange. >What you seem to want is for binxo to be identical to >co'a ckaji Or at least very similar. (Nothing new here. {cfari} is in the same sense identical to {co'a fasnu}, and I'm sure I could find other similar cases if I search for them.) >I think that co'a ckaji covers the predicate logic inferences that you wish >to associate with binxo. Yes, I think it does. My problem is not whether it's covered elsewhere. My problem is whether or not there is something incoherent with the object-object version of {binxo}. co'o mi'e xorxes