Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:46:06 +0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

>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).

So you would claim that:

ko'a dasni le boxfo so'e kosta
He wears the blanket as most coats.

You would claim that:

There is some coat x, such that he wears the blanket as x.

I don't think that's what "he wears the blanket as a coat"
means. I don't think {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta}
entails {ko'a dasni le boxfo da}. To me {lo'e kosta} is
similar to {zi'o} in this regard, it changes the predicate
reducing the number of places by one.

>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.

I don't expect a proof here. I want to understand the claim.
You say that there is a coat x (even if we don't care which one,
and even if we can't find it) such that that coat x is in
relationship {dasni} with ko'a and the blanket. I don't want
to say there is any such coat. If you present any coat to me
and ask whether he is wearing the blanket as that coat, I would
tend to say no, he is not wearing it as that coat.

>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.

Yes, I go with the event too. I thought that the place where an
event took place had to contain all the participants of the event.

><<
>{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}.

{be} makes what follows a part of the description, so it has
to be restrictive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com