From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 27 12:49:02 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DQsWk-0004Vt-4K
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:48:54 -0700
Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DQsWh-0004VX-Rt
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:48:54 -0700
Received: by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix, from userid 72)
	id B4E5527070; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:48:18 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [139.179.111.107] (ppp107.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.111.107])
	by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9CF26F49
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:48:16 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <426FEE61.4040804@bilkent.edu.tr>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:56:17 +0300
From: robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Something Wittgenstein wrote ...
References: <20050425135451.62244.qmail@web81307.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050425135451.62244.qmail@web81307.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 9879
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

John E Clifford wrote:
> --- robin <robin@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>If I remember rightly, the main point
>>Wittgenstein was making that death 
>>isn't a timeless state; it is not a state (or
>>even an event) at all. We 
>>only have a concept of death because of the way
>>language works, not 
>>because there is any state we can point to and
>>call "death".
> 
> 
> 
>  A tad opaque, as I said.  But that is what I was
> saying in my opaque way, more or less.  In
> Lojban,  that someone is dead, lo nu ko'a morsi,
> counts as an event and lasts as long at least as
> this {ko'a} has a referent available for
> conversation (the domain of conversation being at
> least somewhat cumulative temporally).  Further,
> that event is a state since it does not change in
> any relevant way throughout its duration.  But it
> is a state of the world, not a state of ko'a, who
> participates in no states.  I suspect that the
> difference here is marked in Lojban by the
> difference between {nu} and {li'i}: no da li'i
> ko'a morsi kei ko'a.  And, of course, by the
> difference between a particpant and an observer
> (glossed over for {li'i}).
> 
Nicely put.

robin.tr