Re: binxo

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

>Would you say:
>
>        mi binxo lo se fraso
>        There is at least one French speaker x such that I become x.

Which is one reason why I do not accept that as a translation of your
Lojban.

Yes I would say that, but no it does not mean what you translate it to mean.

>>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!

OK so I was sloppy - it refers to a state (by description).  Note that I
was talking about x1 and not x2 when I said "state".  You did not say that
"mi" is not a state.  oops, better correct that "description" since "mi"
is not a description either and you are treating my English as if it were
semantically precise. - there is a sumti raising going on that is parallel in
both places of binxo, so it seems.  But I am not going to make binxo require
two "tu'a"s.

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

Oh come on.  This sounds like inferring that djuno would require a metaphysics
place to be talking about truth implies that I think that a predicate with
such a place cannot exist.  Are you claiming that such a statement is not
covered by predicate logic?

mi binxo lo se fraso means "I become a French speaker".
mi binxo le ka se fraso means "I become a specific-in-mind-property of
French speakers" and seems quite strange to me.

What you seem to want is for binxo to be identical to
co'a ckaji

I think that co'a ckaji covers the predicate logic inferences that you wish
to associate with binxo.

lojbab