binxo

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
 >>                le bitmu cu binxo lo blabi
>>                The wall becomes something white.
>>
>>                le bitmu cu binxo le ka blabi
>>                The wall becomes white.
>>
>I would say the first.
>
>>It seems that x1 and x2 are referring to the same object, which
>>would be saying that something becomes itself.
>
>You are fiddling around with the "identity" sense of "become".  If I become
>a Frech-speaker, I am still myself.  I am then a French speaker too,  Have
I
>become myself?

But that's precisely the point. In English "I become a French speaker"
does not get translated into Logic as "there is some French speaker x
such that I become x".  Would you say:

        mi binxo lo se fraso
        There is at least one French speaker x such that I become x.

Or:

        mi binxo le ka se fraso
        I become such that I have the property of being a French speaker.

>There is an implicit time transition in binxo.  The x1 is a before-state
>that may or may not apply afterwards.  The x2 (probably) must not apply
before
>the time transition.

 Precisely, but {lo se fraso} is not a state! So if the x2 has to be a state
(or better a property) you should say {mi binxo le ka se fraso}.

If we were to accept {mi binxo lo se fraso}, then we lose the connection
with predicate logic.

co'o mi'e xorxes