From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:58:17 2010 Subject: Re: misc responses to and To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:19:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511251351.IAA06668@locke.ccil.org> from "Logical Language Group" at Nov 25, 95 08:37:07 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1000 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 27 12:19:45 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: mi joi la .and. joi la lojbab. cusku be di'e casnu > >> Here you may have a better case; it is probably true that for any > >> , "lo ka " expresses a unique object, and with the > >> new "me" we can recover the predicate if we want it. However, > >> uniformity of abstractors is probably more important. > > > >Uniformity of abstractors, if it is distinct from sticking with the > >status quo, is a positively bad thing. As for sticking with the status > >quo, most people feel it is more important, but I'd like to assure Markl > >that I don't: > > I disagree with John. There can be many properties of a relationship, > especially a multiplace one. The relationship between x1 and x2 of a 5 > place predicate is a property of the relationship, but not the only one. Yes, but (under my xe'u proposal) the difference there is represented by a difference in the bridi, even if not expressed due to sumti nalnunsku. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.