Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qSaer-000023C; Tue, 26 Jul 94 03:46 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4909; Tue, 26 Jul 94 03:44:50 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4906; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 03:44:50 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3749; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 02:43:59 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 20:48:14 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Object and Event X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 690 Lines: 22 Jack Waugh asks: > Would you call a candle flame an "event", or an "object"? An "object". I could say, for example that it is blue, which would be harder to understand in the case of an event. I should say that I would call {le fagri} an object, but probably in some context would translate the English "flame" as {le nu fagri}. What I think would be wrong is to treat {le fagri} as an event, but others will disagree. > Recall that the flame retains no material for long; all > its material is always flowing through it. The physical composition is not really the issue. The individual atoms which form a plant are not always the same, even though the plant remains the same. Jorge