Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: zi'o & otpi

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:38:06 +0100

pc:
> In a message dated 00-07-10 17:39:16 EDT, somebody writes:
>
> << > Even after the last Beagle is killed and eaten, the concept "Beagle" will
> > remain. >>
>
> Can we be losing not only the timelessness of Lojban predicates untensed
> (mutter, mutter!) but also the distinction between {se gerku} and {ka se
> gerku}.

"Beagle" is a se gerku, not a ka se gerku, which is what defines the entire
class of dog breeds.

The dogless dog breed that some DNA-specifying software defines is neither
a se gerku nor a ka se gerku. Possibly it is se ckaji be lo ka se gerku;
I'm too dozy to think that through. Or maybe: {lo ka ce'u gerku la'o gy
this new hypothetical dog breed}.
{ro da poi de ka ce'u gerku ke'a} would refer to every dogbreed.

--And.

> The property can surely exist (Platonists take note) in what ever
> way properties do exist even if nothing ever has that property (it does in
> some world or situation or even tinier realm). By parity of the {botpi} case
> (what this all started with, look you), all the places have to be filled
> simultaneously for the any part of the whole to apply. Hence no breed
> without a dog someworld. But properties are functions into worlds and so not
> IN any world (except META, the world about all the other worlds) and thus
> exist in a nicely tautologous way. Remember pudgala!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
> Remember the good 'ol days
> http://click.egroups.com/1/5531/4/_/17627/_/963272908/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [email-masked]
>