From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 09 12:24:39 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CcUpz-0002RD-S1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:24:31 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: John Cowan's view on reification Message-ID: <20041209202431.GE10796@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20041209201827.GN31601@skunk.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041209201827.GN31601@skunk.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 9078 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list This is actually BPFK business, so the rest of you can ignore it. On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:18:27PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > My view on Lojban's view of reification: > > Everything that a sumti refers to, not within the scope of a > negation, is reified. That includes abstract le nu/lo nu things, > le'e things, lo'e things, and the works. You may perhaps find an > exception to this general principle, but I can probably explain it > away. > > Ya happy now, rlpowell? As long as that means you're comfortable with (in xorlo) the idea that {re lo ci broda} is one broda and {re loi ci broda} is six broda, and as long as xorxes feels his outstanding questions to you have been answered, yep. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/