* Sunday, 2014-11-09 at 13:45 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > But maybe with this analogy I see what you're getting at. Is it that:
> > considering {lo nu broda cu balvi lo nu brode} where the {lo} are taken
> > to get kinds,
> > to determine whether this is true at time t,
> > you look for instances of the kinds, i.e. actual events, somewhere near
> > time t, and somehow pick out a pair (e1,e2),
> > and finally return the truth value of balvi(e1,e2)
> > (which since e1 and e2 are now actual events, doesn't depend on t)
> > ?
>
> > Is that what you mean? So kind of hiding the quantificational structure
> > by delegating it to a semantics of kinds?
>
> Sounds about right.
OK.
This seems like a rather baroque solution!
What's the advantage of adding this layer of indirection?
One thing which seems like a clear disadvantage to me:
e.g. in this example
ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
-> ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu .i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu
.i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'e .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
.i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani
, there's still no specific indication that the instance of ko'e
witnessing {ko'e fasnu} is the same as the instance of {ko'e} witnessing
{ko'o balvi ko'e}. The only connection is that they're both meant to
happen at around the same time.
So this still doesn't give the meaning I believe the original sentence
has.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature