From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412052020.AA11151@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: TECH:  existential quantification
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:20:36 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199411260050.AA18996@nfs2.digex.net> from "Iain Alexander" at Nov 25, 94 11:40:28 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:        780
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec  5 15:21:00 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

la .i,n. cusku di'e

> I pretty much agree with Jorge on this, but I'd like to repeat a
> suggestion I've made in the past.  I like {za'i} in this situation.
> 
>         mi troci lo za'i mi viska do
> 
> This assumes that {za'i <broda>} (the state <broda>) is some
> sort of abstraction from all the events {nu <broda>}.

I think this statement evinces a confusion between "nu" and "mu'e", between
events and point-events.  In Lojban, a state is a kind of event.  You may
say that a state is made up of a welding-together of many point-events,
provided you quantize time (and we don't have to), but nothing can be done
with states that can't be done with (generalized, {nu}) events.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.