Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

2011/12/8 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
> Not trying to amend {binxo}, just to clarify its implications.

The Lojban grammar treats properties differently from non-abstract
objects. We cannot conventionally say {lo bisli} and imply that it's
{lo ka bisli}. If we decided that binxo2 be "an acquired property" to
be attributed to binxo1, that would be a new definition with a
mandatory NU, and currently valid expressions like {lo djacu cu binxo
lo bisli} would no longer be grammatical.


> So, summing it up, the only thing I can generally assert about
> binxo1 and binxo2 is that either the first ceases to exist or the
> second comes to existence in the span of nu binxo, right?
>
> Even this is important, because it means that, no matter how I
> refer to or describe them, either binxo1 has no future or binxo2
> has no past.

Also possible is that the first ceases to exist AND the second comes
into existence. In other words, that binxo1 has no future AND binxo2
has no past. For example, some may say that the painting "Mona Lisa"
came into existence as the blank canvas ceased to exist; no future for
the blank canvas, no past for the painting.

My later response to Pierre will have an example of "binxo1 has future
AND binxo2 has past".


> More concretely, and rewriting my example, at least one of
>  {ko'a tricu ba lo nu binxo}
>  {ko'e tsiju pu lo nu binxo}
> makes reference to an object out of the time-span of the bridi.

I agree.

It's even possible that different speakers describe an object from the
same physical input differently as {ko'a tricu ba lo nu binxo} and
{ko'a tricu banai lo nu binxo} depending on their perspectives.


> Anyway, my main concern with {binxo} usage really is the already
> discussed issue that a change is only actually stated insofar as the
> properties of binxo1 are known to conflict with the ones of binxo2.

Yes, different sets of properties give rise to different objects,
which is what the difference between binxo1 and binxo2 is about. (And
those objects may be considered to be forms of fundamentally different
entities or of one essential entity. It's not something the Lojban
grammar should specify, in my opinion.)


> What do you think about changing the standard definition of {rodbi'o} to
>  {x1 binxo lo broda be ... be'o xn .ipubo x1 na broda}?

(Where is its current definition?)

It's hard for me to read {rod-} as {pu na broda}. The real utility of
{rod-} comes from its assignability:

  la .halk. cu barda je crino je cilce cei broda .i ba'o rodbi'o so'iroi
  Hulk is big, green, and wild. Someone (Dr. Bruce Banner) has become
like that many times over.

  .oi rodbi'o za'ure'u
  Damn, he's at it again!

{pu na broda} would be an inconvenient restriction.

I think {pu na broda} is effectively equivalent to {pare'u broda} in
many cases, and {binxo lo broda} can be paraphrased as {co'a broda}.
So I would consider {pare'u co'a} for the suggested sense of "become":

  mi pare'u co'a ctuca
  I begin to teach for the first time.
  (I become a teacher that I've never been.)

Otherwise, how about {cfabi'o}:

  mi cfabi'o lo ctuca
  I begin-become a teacher.


mu'o

-- 
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.