Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 18:25:07 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: replies mainly re "ka"
In-reply-to: (Your message of Thu, 19 Jan 95 04:04:53 T.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HM1OF529BQ001CCC@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1982
Lines: 45

Goran:
> > Does a set have temporal dimensions? I think it does. Maybe it's a
> > personal quirk of mine to be able to think of most things as events.
> As far as I understand system theory (which may not be perfect):
> Set is an abstract structure, and has no dimensions at all.

What is the ontological status of a set? What does "this set exists"
mean? I can only answer these questions by thinking of sets as literal
or metaphorical collections. Perhaps you can do better.

> > It won't do for "In general,
> > I am grey". And it was that - the inadequacy of lohe in some
> > circumstances - that set me off on this subthread.
> What does that mean, anyway? For "In an interval, I am grey most
> of the time" {na'o} works OK, as far as I can see.

That's pretty much what I meant. But I don't necessarily mean it in
a strictly temporal sense. For example, "in general, the books in this
library never get read" can be true if most of them are never read.
"In general" is a kind of modalizer, stating a generalization that
has exceptions.

> > True enough. But in "an englishman's taste for whisky is acquired" we
> > don't mean the generic Englishman either (though maybe we do mean
> > the generic englishman-with-a-taste-for-whisky, or the generic
> > englishman's-taste-for-whisky).
> >
> > So, how to say "in general it is the case that..."?
> I haven't been following the thread real closely, but what's wrong with
> lo ka lo glipre cu vusnei la uiskis. cu toljinzi
> Property of (an Englishman having taste for whiskey) is non-inherent.

I don't understand this ka clause. Whose property is it?

> You can, if I understand correctly, say {lo'e glipre} in both sentences,
> if you want to generalize instead of making the claim of *every* glipre
> that likes whiskey.

No, because there is no claim that the typical-generic englishman likes
whisky, though I concede that the claim is made that the typical-generic
englishman that likes whisky acquires the liking.

---
And