Re: What binxo means

[cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

la djan. kou'n. cusku di'e:
> I see the force of your objection.  "x1 becomes x2" has the difficulty
> that x1 should still be self-identical after the change, and what are we
> to do with "la xeris. binxo la selis."?  Does this really mean that Harry
> becomes Sally?

Actually I had this problem in mind not for marriage but in connection
with 

	loi bisli cu likbi'o (likti binxo)
	Some ice     melts   (liquid become)

because after it melts it isn't ice.  "le bisli" would be OK since you
just assume that "bisli" cues an in-mind referent and nobody worries
that it doesn't fit the selbri afterward.  I think (not sure) that "da
poi bisli" is also OK because "da" is bound at the beginning (when it
fits the selbri) and is not rebound, so again it's irrelevant whether
it fits the selbri.

> I think my main difficulty results from your loose terminology w.r.t. 
> events and predications.  I take only the latter to have truth value.

In other words, every bridi (with arguments even if not specified by
words) expresses an event, but only some of them express predications,
called "claims" by some, "calling it to the listener's attention" by
others.  Specifically, jufra (main-level sentences) and clauses linked
with "noi" always call attention.  But look at "become" as a kind of
semantic universal, that is, independent of a particular language.  I
claim that "become" translates into three attention calls (claims):

	x1 changes
	x1 doesn't (pred) before
	x1 does (pred) afterward

Thus the (x1 pred) relation, which in most circumstances would be an 
event, mere relation fodder just as you say, becomes an attention call
(claim) because of the semantics of "become", whatever the usual effect
of its representation in Lojban.  (cenba "change" gives only the first
attention call.)  

> ...
> Therefore your "x1 changes so that event x2 is true" should be rewritten as
> "x1 changes so that property x2 (a one-place predicate) is true of it".

I pretty close to agree.  How about "x1 changes so bridi-tail x2
becomes true (was false and is later true) when x1 is replicated as its
first argument after conversion"?  How do the other arguments (if any)
get on the bridi-tail?  Next paragraph:

> This can be readily represented in Lojban.  The abstractor "du'u", 
> grammatically parallel to "nu", has the meaning "sentence/predication of":
> So under this interpretation of the "binxo" place structure, "my rat 
> died" is:
> 
> 	lemi ratcu binxo le du'u morsi
> 	my rat changes-so-that the predication-of (it)-is-dead is true
> 
> where the x1 place of "morsi" is elliptically the rat.
> Of course, this is not official LLG doctrine.  :-)

Let's see if I understand this one.  du'u is like nu except it also
makes the event it governs be a predication (claim)?  This would be fine
with a few additional comments:

a.  binxo still has to duplicate its x2 to give the "false before, true
after" part of its meaning.  This is equally necessary with du'u as with
any other solution.

b.  Users are certainly going to complain "why do I have to say ledu'u
when the meaning is implicit in binxo?  I don't like extra words."
Answer: Lojban does not at present have any transformation rules that
might change "mrobi'o" into "binxo le du'u (x1) morsi".  In place of the
statement "yeah, that's not supported" I would say "it happens so often
and with so many words, not just binxo, that maybe the rule ought to 
be added".  (However with most words the event argument has lenu, not
ledu'u; binxo is special that way.)

Returning to the head of the discussion, my major objection to the
(sumti) binxo (sumti) form is that for good reason we discourage
(sumti) du (sumti) when a predicate form is possible, e.g.

	la banthas. mlatu		la banthas. du lo mlatu
	Bantha      cats (preferred)	Bantha      is  a cat (deprecated)

Then ALL words tangled up with event arguments should be defined so that
a main phrase sumti ends up under a predicate -- not (sumti1) du (sumti2).
Thus:

	le ratcu cu binxo (le du'u vo'a morsa)
	the rat   becomes          it   is dead (preferred place structure)
	le ratcu cu binxo     (lo morsa)
	the rat  changes into a dead thing (jimc deprecates this place str.) 

Unfortunately the discussion started out on binxo which has other hard
features like du'u vs. nu, and the need to duplicate x2.

By the way, are you the same as cowan@marob.masa.com?

		-- jimc