Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tJKqI-0000ZUC; Sat, 25 Nov 95 15:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 717B222C ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 14:40:35 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 08:40:01 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: stages vs. individuals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 906 Lines: 28 Jorge: >Also interesting are his "kinds": individual, stage, and generic. >"Generic" I think corresponds to Lojban's {lo'e}, but Lojban makes no >distinction between his "individuals" and "stages": {mi se cmene zo >xorxes} and {mi klama le zarci} use the same {mi}, even though the first >is mi the individual and the second is only a stage of mi the >individual. Lojban does that with tense, and sumti can be tensed as well as bridi: mi pe ze'a cu se cmene la lojbab The me associated with a medium length of time is called Lojbab. le pujenaica pendo cu klama le zarci The former friend goes to the store. And mi pe ze'e klama le zarci seems to me to assert the "individual" mi rather than the "stage" mi that is going to the store (or maybe it works better with no "pe" so the ze'e attaches to the selbri) though one has to get into the Achilles paradox to find a use for that concept. lojbab