Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 8 December 2011 22:40, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 December 2011 16:29:43 Felipe Gonçalves Assis wrote:
>> Not trying to amend {binxo}, just to clarify its implications.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I think that, in all cases, binxo2 has no past.

Consider an iron rod, {lo tirse grana}. A machine repeats the process
of bending and straightening it:

  lo sirji cu binxo lo korcu
  .i lo korcu cu binxo lo sirji
  .i lo sirji cu binxo lo korcu
  .i lo korcu cu binxo lo sirji
  ...

Eventually it gives way:

  .i lo korcu cu binxo lo porpi

{lo porpi} doesn't have a past, but {lo sirji} and {lo korcu} does.
(They also each have future instances.)


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.