* Sunday, 2014-11-09 at 17:46 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > What's the advantage of adding this layer of indirection?
>
> I don't think I'm adding any layers. All I'm saying is that a bridi refers
> to one thing rather than to a whole family of things.
I see. Persuing this would lead to the "which is primary - the instance
or the kind?" debate, which is probably best avoided!
> 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.
>
> You introduced instances of ko'e in your indirect metalinguistic
> interpretation, but no instances of ko'e are required to interpret the
> sentence. In the direct interpretation there's just ko'e. You check whether
> ko'o and ko'e satisfy balvi( , ) at the right time, not that any new entity
> called intance of ko'e satisfies it.
OK, fine.
But however you want to describe it, there's an element of co-ordination
between the {ko'e fasnu} and the {ko'o balvi ko'e} which I believe is
a crucial part of the semantics of the original sentence, but which
seems to get lost in your kind-based rewriting.
Depending on how things work, maybe it could be a matter of making the
translation be:
ca ro nu mi xagji kei lo nu mi klama lo zarci kei fasnu je se balvi
be lo nu mi klama lo zdani
(where again we need to add, and can't seem to in lojban, that the {lo
nu}s are getting kinds)?
I'm thinking that using {je} there be different from using {gi'e} - if
ko'a is the kind of broda(x), then
{ko'a brodi je brodu} ~~ {su'o da poi broda cu brodi je brodu}
{ko'a brodi gi'e brodu} ~~ {su'o da poi broda cu brodi .i je su'o da poi
broda cu brodu}
(where I don't know exactly what the relation between left and right is,
but probably at least right implies left).
> Or how do you interpret "ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi mi ctigau"? Is there
> any indication that the time-slice of "mi" witnessing the first "mi"
> is the same time-slice of "mi" witnessing the second "mi" of "mi mi
> ctigau"?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The times are (roughly) the same,
by the semantics of {ca}, so yes they're (roughly) the same time-slices.
But no extra indication of that is required. I suppose one has to use
that future-me can't be hungry now.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature