Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

The metaphysics is getting a little thick here.  Lojban doesn't say much sub 
rosa about what exists or does not; it (like most languages) is just about what 
predicates apply.  No thing comes into existence or passes out of it in {binxo} 
and related predicates; rather one set of predicates cease to apply and a new 
set come to apply. That is, there is a change of state not of substance.  
Otherwise there would be no change, merely a substitution  (read a good old 
Thomist on the Eucharist).




----- Original Message ----
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 10, 2011 5:56:33 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

2011/12/9 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
> 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}?

{mrobi'o} may be called a dynamic predicate, which denotes a change of
state. This brivla definitely means a shift to je'a morsi, and that
shift can be stated meaningfully only if the origin is je'anai morsi.
je'anai morsi includes no'e / na'e / to'e morsi. At least one of these
states is implied to be true pu lo nu binxo by {mrobi'o}, whether or
not the brivla's definition explicitly says so.


> 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.

If the resulting object was je'anai / ja'anai cipni, {binxo lo cipni}
would be false. And "almost broda" is still na broda.


> You might still use {mrobi'o} instead of {co'a morsi va'o} because you 
>understand that the x1 ceased to exist.

If by {lo gerku} I meant the biological body of a dog, I could say {lo
gerku cu mrobi'o} and mean not that the x1 (the body) has ceased to
exist. (If existence required a biological functioning, all non-life
would have been non-existent.)


> 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.

In my view: {ko'a poi na'e jibni ko'e} ceases to exist as {ko'a poi
je'a jibni ko'e} comes into existence.


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.

-- 
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.