* Thursday, 2014-11-13 at 20:30 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes. So the kind-based translation falls, incorrectly, on the first side
> > of the dividing line you drew above - it allows for, and appears to
> > involve, two goings shopping for each hungering (ignoring that
> > pragmatics might, in this particular case, lead us to assume that
> > they're equal).
>
> I don't think in the kind-reading there are any other goings shopping other
> than the one kind, so there are no two that could be equal or unequal.
Aside:
The kind "going shopping" isn't a going shopping, surely?
That there's no easy way in lojban to differentiate between going
shopping and goings shopping is a real problem, I feel.
Is claiming that an event-kind occurs at a particular time not
equivalent to claiming that an event instance of the kind occurs at that
time?
Could you clarify something else for me about the kinds translation:
if ko'a and ko'i are event-kinds, does {ca ko'u ko'a balvi ko'i} imply
{ca ko'u ko'a .e ko'i fasnu}?
If so, why also explicitly declare ko'a to fasnu? But if not, I think
the kinds translation's meaning might be quite different from that
I attribute to the original sentence.
Also if so, actually - I wouldn't understand {ca ko'u broda gi'e ba bo
brode} to imply that {ca ko'u brode}, but rather that {ca ko'u ba
brode}.
> Another point against the quantifier reading is that if you change ".e ba
> bo" to "na .a ba bo", then we would seem to need to change "su'o" to "ro"
> in the quantified expansion: "ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci na .a
> ba bo lo zdani" -> "ca ro nu mi xagji kei ro da poi nu mi klama lo zarci
> zo'u ga nai da fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani" or something like that,
> whereas with the kind-reading you use the same expansion "ca ro nu mi xagji
> kei ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ga nai ko'a fasnu gi ba ko'a mi
> klama lo zdani".
Interesting. So this is like a literal translation of "if I go to the
market, after going to the market I go home", analysing "going to the
market" as a reference to a kind rather than as a reference to a witness
going in the antecedent?
So you now prefer this approach to your previous suggestion of using
{nu na broda} when analysing {broda .i [jek] [tag] bo brode}?
So I guess this kind of reasoning would have
{broda .i je nai ca bo brodo} mean something like "broda occurs, but
broda never occurs simultaneously with brodo"? Whereas I would have
expected it to mean something more like "broda occurs some time when
brodo doesn't".
> > I don't see how to fix this, if the {je} approach doesn't work.
>
> I'm not opposed to giving "broda je brode" a different meaning than "broda
> gi'e brode". Technically "broda je brode" is an atomic predicate in FOPL
> terms.
Yes. I think we already agree on one difference: {broda je brode da} has
the quantifier in outermost scope, unlike {broda gi'e brode vau da}.
Martin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature