From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 00:59:39 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3149 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:59:37 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 27 May 95 22:18:16 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa08236; 27 May 95 23:17 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2716; Sat, 27 May 95 18:15:23 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8100; Sat, 27 May 1995 18:15:22 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 18:18:34 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505272317.aa08236@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R > > Why is the fact that the book can be there a fact, but the fact > > that it actually is there is not a fact? > > Suppose it's in the nature of this particular book to be capable of > lying on the table. This nature is an unchanging thing and doesn't > depend on particular circumstances. (I'm not sure if the book can be > innately capable of doing something like lying on the table. > But I'd argue that {le du'u lo'e cukta cu ka'e te tcidu cu fatci}.) I don't really know which relationships are innate and which aren't, so I have no comment about that, but anyway, we are disagreeing about the meaning of {fatci}, not of {kau}. (Also, note that the "innateness", if it exists, would not be only a property of the thing read, but also of the reader, and of the text read. This is a problem I have about the innateness of {ka'e}, it usually seems to be applied only to the x1 of the relationship. If you say that books can innately be read by humans, then you are also saying that humans can innately read books. Personally, I don't believe there is anything innate about {ka'e}.) > mu'o mi'e. dilyn. > mu'o mi'e xorxes