Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Tuesday, 2014-11-11 at 19:01 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > > > 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

Trying again to make sense of this, I came to this as an english
translation:
"Every time I'm hungry, (going marketwards and going home following
going marketwards) occurs".

How did I do?

I guess it would be "my going ..." because of the "mi": (my going marketwards and my going home following

my going marketwards) occurs.

(Also "going marketwards" doesn't really mean I reached the market, so maybe "my going shopping" if you don't want to mention markets.).

What's the difference, at a particular time (etc), between {lo nu ge
broda gi brode cu fasnu} and {ge broda gi brode}?

Or indeed, between {lo nu broda cu fasnu} and {broda}?

(Assuming in both cases that {lo} gets the kind.)

(These aren't intended as rhetorical questions; I have little idea what
the semantics of event-kinds should be.)

I don't suppose there's a lot of difference, although they don't seem to be logically equivalent because "lo nu broda" only makes sense if "broda" describes an event, but not all bridi that can be asserted describe events.

I suppose the original question was whether asserting "broda" (when the bridi describes an event) was more like asserting "lo nu broda cu fasnu" or "su'o nu broda cu fasnu", and at least to me the first one seems closer. Just asserting "broda" doesn't really require there to be any events in the universe of discourse. Asserting "lo nu broda cu fasnu" requires there to be an event of brodaing (possibly a kind). Asserting "su'o nu broda cu fasnu" suggests if not requires a number of events, and the claim is just that at least one of them happens, but that seems weaker than the plain "broda" claim.

> > ca ro nu mi xagji kei lo nu mi klama lo zarci kei fasnu je se balvi
> > be lo nu mi klama lo zdani
> >
> > 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).
>
> I think "je" even in tanru has been taken to be ordinary logical
> conjunction (although it gets weird with non-unary predicates), but maybe
> tanru "jo'u" or "joi"?

I meant it as logical conjunction. The idea was to get the conjunction
inside the quantifier.

Right, but I meant that "ko'a brodi je brodu" is supposed to be equivalent to "ko'a brodi gi'e brodu", at least for unary brodi and brodu, in which case it wouldn't really work to make the distinction. "su'o da poi broda cu brodi gi'e brodu" already has the conjunction inside the quantifier.

> But I don't see why the same argument that holds for time slices wouldn't
> hold for event instances. If you read the original sentence as allowing
> for the possibility that when I'm hungry I may go many times to the market,
> but at least one of those times has to be followed by a time of me going
> home, then I see your point, but the way I read it there's just one
> relevant instance of going to the market and then going home for each time
> I'm hungry.

I read the original sentence that way too. But I don't see how to read
your kind-based translation that way. It claims both {ko'e fasnu} and
{ko'o balvi ko'e}, wrapped inside a single event-kind. How does that
force the going to the market (i.e. instance of ko'e) in the former to
be same as the going to the market in the latter?

Only in so far as it's the only relevant instance of my-going-to-the-market around at that time. But I don't think that's actually part of the claim, which doesn't involve instances. Just as a claim in which "mi" appears twice doesn't involve time slices, even though it will be only a time slice that makes the claim true, if you start analyzing it that way.

mu'o mi'e xorxes