From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:46:35 2010
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: selbri as sumti
Date: Wed Mar 22 17:59:36 1995
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Mar 22 17:59:36 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <WJG0zE1fdy.A.1UG.Lv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

And:
> > > Why isn't it [lo {[roldei] gihe [klesi be ro lohi selzukte be mi]}]?
> > Because it's:
> >  mi [ba'o gasnu lu'a lo roldei] gi'e [klesi be ro lo'i selzukte be mi]
> So which connective do we use to get intersections?

{je}

> > > I think that how to specify the x2 of krefu using a {lo} gadri is
> > > the kind of thing I've already been asking about: it wd seem to refer
> > > to a category rather than an individual.
> > I think the x2 is just the first of the series, not the archetype,
> > whatever that is. (Or if it was, we could use {lo'e}, maybe.)
>
> So if John goes, and then Sophy goes, Sophy's going is a recurrence
> of John's going? Seems weird.

I wouldn't say Sophy's going was a recurrence of John's. I wouldn't
say that they are both recurrences of the same event either. My
brushing my teeth today is a recurrence of my brushing my teeth
yesterday, but not of someone else's brushing their teeth, or me
brushing something else, or anything like that.

> As for using {lohe}, I want to use
> {lo}. But, that said, our discussion of {lohe} concluded by proposing
> that {lohe} indicate not an archetype but an individual undifferentiated
> from other individuals of the same class,

Right. It seems to work well.

> and using lohe with
> this meaning as x2 of krefu does seem particularly appropriate for
> talking about different temporally differentiable manifestations of
> lohe broda, as in
>   ca Monday, mi viska lohe gerku
>   ca Tuesday, mi viska lo krefu be lohe gerku

You could just say that do viska lo'e gerku again. Both events are
lo krefu be lo'e nu do viska lo'e gerku

>   ca Monday mi viska la djan
>   ca Tuesday  mi viska lo kerfu be la djan

Or: lo krefu be do cu viska lo krefu be la djan

But I would say {krefu le nu do viska la djan}

(Also, {do rere'u viska la djan} when {re'u} is approved.)

> The implication is that an individual is like a set of experiencings
> of that individual; the Djan you see today is not the Djan you saw
> yesterday, even if you saw the same person on both days.

I suppose it's meaningful, although I wouldn't advocate it as the
general philosophy of the language. I certainly don't want to stick
{lo krefu be} in front of every sumti.

Jorge