Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 17:18:44 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: About 'zasti'
In-reply-to: <199412100013.AA06761@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Dec
 9, 94 03:56:20 pm
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKUDWPT7KY000949@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1211
Lines: 32

la rob. pu cusku di'e

> > >zasti zat     za'i exist
> > >x1 exists/is real/actual/reality for x2 under metaphysics x3
> >
> > In my opinion, this definition (though  perfectly "politically correct" :)
> > is not satisfactory.

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> I tend to agree with you. If I believe that something exists, then I believe
> it exists for everybody. If I want to say that in my opinion something
> exists but I accept that you think that it doesn't, then I wouldn't say
> {ko'a na zasti do}, since in my opinion it exists for everybody.

That is an expression of one possible x3 value.  There may be other
metaphysices (?) where what exists for me need not exist for you and vice
versa.  So you might deny "ko'a na zasti do mi", but accept "ko'a na zasti do
ko'e", where "ko'e" is bound to some subjectivist metaphysics.

> Unless the x2 is the place for the one who holds the opinion, but then every
> selbri should have such a place.

Actually, x2 is semi-cleft with respect to x3; it is the person who has the
role of "experiencer" within x3.

Or so my metaphysics tells me.  :-)

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