Re: Lojban ML: Syllogism and sophism

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>The question is whether {ce'u} is like {ma}, which appears
>independently every time, or whether it is like {ke'a}, which stands
>for the same referent  every time it appears within the relevant bridi.
>I was assuming it was like {ke'a}, in which case the pe-restriction
>is not enough to make it stand for two different slots.

Probably depends on whether it is reasonable that the same ce'u fill more than
one slot in normal usage.  (I am sure it is possible, but whether it is
so common as to be the preferable unmarked form seems unclear.  Your
opinion would seem more valid than mine since you use the word %^).

>>Then I would see it as a binxo, having a final state that is a different
>>person or event from that which started.
>
>Definitely a cenba can be a binxo. For example:
>
>            la djan cenba le ka ce'u skari makau
>            John changes in what colour he is.
>
>            la djan noi blanu cu binxo la djan noi crino
>            John, who was blue, becomes John, who is green.
>
>            lo blanu cu binxo lo crino
>            Someone blue becomes someone green.
>
>I don't see one excluding the other.

I think that binxo would NORMALLY refer to a final state, whereas cenba
refers to something that need not have a final state.  As such, a cenba could
imply many se binxo but I am not sure that binxo always implies a meaningful
cenba.

But no I do not see them as exclusive.  Both indicate change but one
talks about the endpoints while the other talks about what is changing
with no implication that there IS an endpoint.

>>But to me it is NOT The object that has the properties in ka, but the
>>relationship between ALL the objects that has the properties.
>
>So you disagree with these:
>
>        la djan ckaji le ka ce'u blanu
>        John has the property of being blue.
>
>        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu
>        John changes in the property of being blue.

Bad example since blanu has only one place.

But x1 need not be a concrete.

lenu binxo cu ckaji leka ce'u temci cortu

But in any case you are correct - IF you put a ce'u into a ka abstraction
then obviously that abstraction is describing the properties of something
that fills that ce'u place.  But my concept of ka abstractions is that this
is an application, and not the basic nature of ka.

lo ka klama for example can have ce'u put in any of 5 different places
(plus a number of plausible modal places perhaps).  But without any ce'u
it has meaning as well.  It then become one of those "universal abstracts"
that often in English gets a capital letter:
lo ka melbi = Beauty
Beauty is a concept that stands on its own independent of specific objects
that may be characterized by beauty.  And Beauty is as much dependent on an
aesthetic standard as it is on having an object that is beautiful as it is
on having a beholder.

lo ka klama is a different universal - Motion and in particular  Motion
that starts somewhere and ends somewhere else via particular route(s).

I would like to think that these abstractions have specific in-mind
realizations le ka broda, that may pertain to specific values of the places
without focussing on any one.  Thus leka le xrula cu melbi mi zu'i
is a property not of me, the flower or the aesthetic standard, but all three.
It is a  small b "beauty", but is more than a mere property of a flower.

>>I see leka djuno as being the properties of
>>"knowing".
>
>Are you thinking of {ce'u} in all places of djuno? If so, "relationship"
>might be a better word for it than "properties".


Maybe so, when all places are filled by ce'u - I gues that is what a bare
selbri is absent context.  But I am referring to what happens when all
place are filled byspecifics and none is a ce'u.

>>>        la djan cenba le ka ce'u cu'ekau blanu
>>>        John changes in the time/tense signature of his being blue.
>>
> >whereas for me it is lenu la djan blanu that is varying, and not John.
>
>So if John goes from being a {co'a blanu} to being a {co'u blanu}
>he is not varying? I don't see why not. Both John and {le nu la djan
>blanu} can vary, each in their own properties.

If la djan binxo la djim
by some strabge mechanism, we would not normally say that
either la djan or la djim cu cenba
because it is not clear that any particular property changed
There was something more akin to replacement.

My problem is partially that though - if A binxo B, is it A cenba or
B cenba.  In a time free sense it seems that both would have to be true,
even if B is a final state and will no longer change.  That is because
the present B that was the former A is the only current manifestation of
that which changes - there no longer is an A, so in the present tense
to say that "A changed is false, becausethere is no present referent of A.

I have to get my kids ready for school, so I will have to continue later.
lojbab