From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARC_y7fmBBoE6gnqDQ@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 31 14:55:29 2010 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCfs1-0005l2-Tj; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:28 -0700 Received: by pwi2 with SMTP id 2sf415007pwi.16 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=WZlknhFsHTLV9WkY9v9tOboueYpeoCqWZCC+hUD9zuk=; b=Ot8HSs1YLTqHGgD3wkc8dspZ+mdcCHbRXho5hIsZSkLtG1CkRgkuBVd4USfrN1oOH7 BbWZ8xbKChfFXIA16gFvG/nAVAf2Zh8N83SFc+9Da+FBbjrgNe8bzQ2yEAKhpj3pgXzy XSdP2f9jqIB57Evkmx0ILGYh+XmUoqNSQSq1M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=wmuN2IhyjxcXsehpXCdtK8/rpDgRSyHtEinbuxqr+NZEEngvHLrtxoVqq2g5cxaw/R RB0SJB0r+FWK0to806o4UuO1fFiUm4PLpLf3dseN3xzeHuRR2L2KZNOTZKj4gVPKDZf4 NS5I3ZAe2V2CWHeH9xQaj2P2fu5HWPFmKINoc= Received: by 10.143.26.32 with SMTP id d32mr165046wfj.51.1288562111701; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.6.9 with SMTP id 9ls4883684wff.3.p; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.224.17 with SMTP id w17mr2930479wfg.70.1288562110963; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.224.17 with SMTP id w17mr2930478wfg.70.1288562110911; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f50.google.com (mail-pw0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id f13si8038388wfo.4.2010.10.31.14.55.09; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.50; Received: by pwi4 with SMTP id 4so1093623pwi.23 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.231.11 with SMTP id d11mr3703898wfh.222.1288562109678; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.71.13 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:55:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <995110.82874.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:55:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd2968cd1858e0493f0be76 --000e0cd2968cd1858e0493f0be76 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The "event is concrete" concept is interesting, but I disagree with the ide= a of lumping events in with physical objects in predicate structure. If anything they should be a third type unto themselves. As for the issue with {zmadu}, the problem that it is possible to compare two objects as long as they are of the same type, but that comparison is defined for different types as well. This is troubling to the static type perspective, I agree, but I don't think this is the best solution. Nor do I think my impulse, which is to start defining typeclasses, one of which woul= d have comparison, is reasonable for the setting of spoken languages. mu'o mi'e latros. 2010/10/31 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Ian Johnson > wrote: > > Perhaps it is the static typer in me, but I would go so far as to say > that > > it does not make sense for a place in a gismu to be able to be an > > abstraction or a concrete object. > > I generally agree with you there (but see the caveat below). The point > where we disagree though is probably that you consider events to be > "abstractions", and I don't. > > Events are as concrete as concrete can be. They dwell in space-time > just like apples and unicorns do. They are not abstract like numbers > or sets or properties or propositions. The main difference between > events and objects is that events are relatively well defined in time > but fuzzy in space, whereas objects are relatively well defined in > space but fuzzy in time. > > The caveat is that there are some predicates that admit of different > types in different contexts. For example: > > lo vi bolci cu zmadu lo va bolci lo ka barda > > li so cu zmadu li ci lo ka barda > > So the x1 and x2 of "zmadu" can be abstractions, like numbers, or > objects, like balls, but it wouldn't make sense to compare the > magnitude of one type with the magnitude of the other type. > > The x1 of ckaji too can be pretty much of any type, but only if the > corresponding property in x2 accepts the corresponding type. > > The x3 of djuno can be pretty much of any type, it can be anything > about which something can be known. > > And so on. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --000e0cd2968cd1858e0493f0be76 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The "event is concrete" concept is interesting, but I disagree wi= th the idea of lumping events in with physical objects in predicate structu= re. If anything they should be a third type unto themselves.

As for the issue with {zmadu}, the problem that it is possible to comp= are two objects as long as they are of the same type, but that comparison i= s defined for different types as well. This is troubling to the static type= perspective, I agree, but I don't think this is the best solution. Nor= do I think my impulse, which is to start defining typeclasses, one of whic= h would have comparison, is reasonable for the setting of spoken languages.=

mu'o mi'e latros.

2010/10/31 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps it is the static typer in me, but I wo= uld go so far as to say that
> it does not make sense for a place in a gismu to be able to be an
> abstraction or a concrete object.

I generally agree with you there (but see the caveat below). The poin= t
where we disagree though is probably that you consider events to be
"abstractions", and I don't.

Events are as concrete as concrete can be. They dwell in space-time
just like apples and unicorns do. They are not abstract like numbers
or sets or properties or propositions. The main difference between
events and objects is that events are relatively well defined in time
but fuzzy in space, whereas objects are relatively well defined in
space but fuzzy in time.

The caveat is that there are some predicates that admit of different
types in different contexts. For example:

=A0lo vi bolci cu zmadu lo va bolci lo ka barda

=A0li so cu zmadu li ci lo ka barda

So the x1 and x2 of "zmadu" can be abstractions, like numbers, or=
objects, like balls, but it wouldn't make sense to compare the
magnitude of one type with the magnitude of the other type.

The x1 of ckaji too can be pretty much of any type, but only if the
corresponding property in x2 accepts the corresponding type.

The x3 of djuno can be pretty much of any type, it can be anything
about which something can be known.

And so on.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--000e0cd2968cd1858e0493f0be76--