Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id UAA00930 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 20:44:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199511280144.UAA00930@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 843B8D5A ; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 19:53:47 -0400
Date:         Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:52:51 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: logical issues (lambda,ka, man-dogs, etc.)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 27 20:44:10 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

la djan cusku di'e

> Lojban is generally opposed to essences, but can resuscitate them by
> using "ka".

How would that work? Suppose {le ka ke'a prenu} = "being a person" is
an essential property, and {le ka ke'a klama le zarci} = "going to
the store" is an ephemeral one. How does {ka} help?

I know! Let's use subscripts: {ka xi pa} for essentials, and {ka xi no}
for ephemerals, and of course you can have all the fuzzy range in
between.  :)

Jorge