From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 11 06:22:17 1995
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Sat Mar 11 06:22:17 1995
Subject:      Re: On {lo} and existence
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Fri, 10 Mar 95 16:01:36 EST.)
Status: RO
Message-ID: <nucCFdHGwHP.A.2YG.Pv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Jorge:
> la djan cusku di'e
> > > {dahinai} = real. {dahi} = real or imaginary. "Real" means "real in the
> > > universe of discourse". "Imaginary" means "not real in the universe of
> > > discourse".
> > Note that "xanri" does not mean "imaginary" in this sense, due to its x2;
> > for something to be "imaginary" in the Lojban sense, there must exist an
> > imaginer.
> Can something be "imaginary" in And's sense without there being an
> imaginer? I won't even try to imagine what that could be, or I would
> spoil it.

My intention is that dahi(nai) is not defined by the existence of
an imaginer or restrictable by the identity of an imaginer. "Imaginary"
is simply the complement of "real".

---
And