Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>]

On 7 December 2011 07:08, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/12/6 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> While I don't consider the concept of an object becoming a different
>> one to be illogical, I do opine that it brings more complications and
>> is less useful than that of an object acquiring a property.
>
> That seems to involve the assumption that there are *essential*
> objects that persist throughout the flux of perceived changes. Is a
> tree essentially a seed that has acquired lo ka tricu, or is it the
> tree that virtually appears to be a seed due to lo ka tsiju that the
> tree cyclically acquires and loses over generations? Or are both of
> them property-acquired forms of a soil, or the Earth, or star-stuff?
> How would we consistently tell "the real object" (binxo1) from
> derivative properties (binxo2)? Wouldn't that be complicated?
>

Ontological implications need not go this deep. Objects of the discourse
are parts of the universe that may have a limited existence in space-time.
The fact that I choose to describe an event using an object which persists
through the span of the event does not mean that I neglect the limits of its
existence.

That said, I do admit that this more radical notion of binxo might be relevant
to a discourse.

I still would like to know: What are the implications of binxo on the existence
of binxo1 and binxo2 during the nu binxo?
Does binxo1 cease to exist?
Does binxo2 come to existence?
Always? Possibly? Never?

mu'a does
  {lo tsiju goi ko'a binxo lo tricu goi ko'e}
exclude
  {ko'a ba tricu}?
  {ko'e pu tsiju}?

> I said that binxo1 & binxo2 are not properties from the grammatical
> viewpoint. We don't usually say {lo djacu cu binxo lo *ka* bisli} (but
> we can say {lo djacu co'a ckaji lo ka bisli}). And, when I say {lo
> djacu cu binxo lo bisli}, I don't necessarily mean that "an object
> which essentially is water" turns into "an object which essentially is
> ice"; I could mean that energy changes its appearance from water to
> ice.
>

I hope answers to the questions above help clarify this.

>
>> If binxo2 is just an object that comes to existence while taking the place
>> of binxo1, then mu'a
>>  {ko'a binxo lo bisli}
>> doesn't entail at all that
>>  {ko'a na bisli pu lonu binxo},
>> since it could just as well refer to an iceberg becoming an ice sculpture.
>
> Although {ko'a binxo lo bisli} (something becomes a quantity of ice)
> wouldn't be a meaningful statement if {ko'a} wasn't {na bisli}, I see
> your point, for which I would more consider {ko'a noi bisli cu binxo
> ko'e noi bisli} (something which is ice becomes something else which
> is ice).
>
>
>> ra'unai in English grammar, "The water becomes ice" is analysed as
>> subject-verb-predicate, just like "It seems blue", and unlike "I love you",
>> which is subject-verb-object.
>
> "The water becomes ice" seems analogous to {lo djacu co'a bisli}.
> {*lo* bisli} may be more accurately translated as "a quantity of ice".
>

"The water becomes a quantity of ice" has the same analysis, and is still
a valid translation of {lo djacu co'a bisli}. But if you want a lojbanically
nominal predicative, I guess we could say
  {lo djacu co'a me lo bisli}

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

-- 
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.