From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 09 06:53:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 13:53:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 19151 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 13:53:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 13:53:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m04.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.7) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 13:53:39 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.bc.2a66daeb (4402) for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:53:12 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bc.2a66daeb.2a852348_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_bc.2a66daeb.2a852348_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/8/2002 9:17:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > It makes no difference which one, but you're still claiming there > is one. To verify the truth of the statement we would have to find > the coat that ko'a is wearing the blanket as. You're claiming there > is one such coat, I don't want to claim such a thing. > Probably the first one you come across would do. Put it on ko'a and see if it works like his blanket. If so, then the case is proven. Else, try another (but it is hard to imagine -- though I expect you will manage -- how it would fail). << But ignoring those questions is just what >particular quantifiers are for. I don't agree, but you're the logician. >> Well, look at mathematics. Existence proofs are often non-constructive, as are the hypotheses that lead up to them: many people believe there are rpimes of the appropriate sort that are not Mersenne numbers but few expect a proof that gives one. << But he is wearing what goes in x2, not what goes in x3. >> But he is wearing x2 AS x3, which IS a garment to be worn. Thus, x3 must be a garment and wearable (is that redundant?). << I think spatial tenses indicate where x1, x2, x3, etc are. In this case the wearer is not on the shoulder. If that is wrong, space tenses might have some use after all, but is it wrong? >> Which is it? The tenses mark where the event is or the tenses mark where the items in the event are (notice x3 is NOT there and, indeed, is perhaps nowhere in this world, an ancient Roman toga, for example). I go with the event, as you did originally. << {pe} would be used to identify which boxfo you're talking about: the one on the shoulder, as opposed to some other blanket. I think {be} would work like that too, so it would have to be {ne}. >> Well, I agree about {pe} and probably about {ne}. {be} is harder, since officially it makes {le birka janco} occupy a place in the structure of {boxfo} (a place not usually there, to be sure) and the exact relation of that place to the rest of the structure is unspecified. It does seem to be more intimate than {ne}, but not obviously restrictive like {pe}. --part1_bc.2a66daeb.2a852348_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/8/2002 9:17:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

It makes no difference which one, but you're still claiming there
is one. To verify the truth of the statement we would have to find
the coat that ko'a is wearing the blanket as. You're claiming there
is one such coat, I don't want to claim such a thing.

Probably the first one you come across would do. Put it on ko'a and see if it works like his blanket. If so, then the case is proven. Else, try another (but it is hard to imagine -- though I expect you will manage -- how it would fail).

<<
But ignoring those questions is just what
>particular quantifiers are for.

I don't agree, but you're the logician.
>>
Well, look at mathematics. Existence proofs are often non-constructive, as are the hypotheses that lead up to them: many people believe there are rpimes of the appropriate sort that are not Mersenne numbers but few expect a proof that gives one.

<<
But he is wearing what goes in x2, not what goes in x3.
>>

But he is wearing x2 AS x3, which IS a garment to be worn. Thus, x3 must be a garment and wearable (is that redundant?).

<<
I think spatial tenses indicate where x1, x2, x3, etc are. In this
case the wearer is not on the shoulder. If that is wrong, space
tenses might have some use after all, but is it wrong?
>>
Which is it? The tenses mark where the event is or the tenses mark where the items in the event are (notice x3 is NOT there and, indeed, is perhaps nowhere in this world, an ancient Roman toga, for example). I go with the event, as you did originally.

<<
{pe} would be used to identify which boxfo you're talking about:
the one on the shoulder, as opposed to some other blanket. I think
{be} would work like that too, so it would have to be {ne}.
>>

Well, I agree about {pe} and probably about {ne}. {be} is harder, since officially it makes {le birka janco} occupy a place in the structure of {boxfo} (a place not usually there, to be sure) and the exact relation of that place to the rest of the structure is unspecified. It does seem to be more intimate than {ne}, but not obviously restrictive like {pe}.

--part1_bc.2a66daeb.2a852348_boundary--