Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

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

On 10 December 2011 08:56, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Denotes change of state? To which state? {lo ka ce'u je'a morsi}?
This state is not mentioned in the main bridi.

>
>> 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.
>

I am sorry if I was not clear here. I was talking about {e'enai binxo lo morsi}
as describing a statue being transformed in a dead bird. You can also consider
that it is the turning of a dead frog to a dead bird.

>
>> 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.)
>

I don't deny that, I am just pointing that the unrealised possibility of using
{co'a morsi}, a very clear expression, creates a pragmatic pressure on the
interpretation of {binxo lo morsi} as either less (as in the dead bird example)
or more (as in the x1 ceasing to exist interpretation).

>
>> 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.
>

It is fine to me that you talk about objects that cease to exist by movement
(and not by death), but I don't think you can refer to two different things as
{ko'a} without reassignment. I guess you mean {ko'a} ceases to exist and
{lo je'a jibni be ko'e} comes to existence, which is fine.

I am just saying that it is not the most clear way to make the point that a
conventional object merely approached another one (in position).

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.