Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

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

On 9 December 2011 09:27, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> My later response to Pierre will have an example of "binxo1 has future
> AND binxo2 has past".
>

Right. These examples are only possible if both objects have disconnected
time-lines, a possibility I neglected.

The first paragraph is still true:
>> 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.


>
>> 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?)
>

I meant, the usual definition, as per easy-lujvo.

> 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":
>

I meant "Sometime in the past it was false that...". Now, reviewing the CLL,
I see an odd remark about NA and PU being commutative. This doesn't
make sense to me right now, but let's leave this to another thread.

For now, let's go with {na'e}.

Let us consider, for example, the definition of {mrobi'o}
  "b1 dies under conditions b3."
  {x1 binxo lo morsi x2}

Where in the lojban definition does it say that {x1 na'e morsi pu lonu binxo}?

I understand that the lojban definition is applicable to a small statue that
almost made it to be turned in a live bird by one of McGonagall's pupils.
The English one, not so much.

I actually like the lojban definition, I just think the translation
doesn't match,
and that people ought to make up their minds about what they mean.

---

You might still use {mrobi'o} instead of {co'a morsi va'o} because you
understand
that the x1 ceased to exist. But this is certainly not the case with many other
lujvo like {jbibi'o}, "approach". If someone, instead of
  {ko'a co'a jibni ko'e},
says
  {ko'a binxo lo jibni be ko'e},
I would tend to consider ko'a ceasing to exist as a justification for
the introduction
of this new entity "lo jibni". Of course, the fact that binxo2 is
close to ko'e ought
to be important in some way, but a mere approach would not be my first guess.

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.