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 would go so far as to say thatI generally agree with you there (but see the caveat below). The point
> it does not make sense for a place in a gismu to be able to be an
> abstraction or a concrete object.
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=en.