Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

Personally, I think that what is being discussed here is, yeah, metaphysics, despite Felipe's assertion to the contrary, and therefore, as John said, beyond the scope of what lojban chooses to define. And therefore, I am loath to get into the discussion. But, I was curious as to why this discussion didn't involve (and to my mind, should have in many places), binxo's sister valsi, farvi. After all, we are still dealing with something changing, explicitly FROM something (farvi3=binxo1) TO something (farvi2=binxo2), and yet, has some kind of eternal existence outside of those two endpoints (farvi1), and passes through as many stages as we wsih (farvi4), while still keeping its farvi1 identity. ta lo tsiju lo tricu ci'i da cu farvi. Does the existence of farvi inform your questions about binxo any, Felipe?

--gejyspa

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:41 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 December 2011 14:05, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:27 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Er, no; the grammar has no idea about what types of things different sumti
> are. You can put properties and concrete sumti in the same places in any
> selbri grammatically. What you're talking about is a sort of low level
> semantics that is beneath most other semantics, namely what sorts of things
> can do what, that is to say {ka'e} statements.

A language's semantics can be considered part of the language's
grammar. Right use of Lojban requires right knowledge of its semantics
among other things.

What types of things different sumti are, are sparsely defined. muvdu1
is "object", jinzi1 "property", and so on; bisli1 currently lacks such
specification, not because it can be either an object or a property
but because people haven't bothered to write the definition in an
optimally consistent fashion. The grammar, in the broad sense, does
have as much ideas about what place can have what kind of sumti as
they are defined or commonly understood: it may not validate {lo muvdu
cu jinzi mi} if it isn't some metaphorical _expression_. Likewise, {lo
djacu cu binxo lo bisli} can be grammatical or ungrammatical depending
on the consensus the community may have over binxo2 and bisli1 as well
as other places.

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.