From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:44:52 2010
Date:         Sat, 27 May 1995 18:18:34 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers)
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
X-From-Space-Date: 
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <a4HLJhAsSzI.A.dgE.kt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

>  > 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