Message-Id: <199604101833.OAA00335@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:25:03 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      *kamkantu
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 939

And last month:
>Goran
>> Yes, but we do not differentiate between kamkantu and kamselkantu in
>> gliban.
>
>Do we distinguish them in Lojban?  After all, {ka kantu kei} means the
>same as {ka se kantu kei}; or is there some jvajvo convention that makes
>{kamkantu} = {ka kea kantu kei} and {kamselkantu} {ka kea se kantu kei}?
>I suppose such a convention is a good idea, if you like jvajvo.

I agree that it is a reasonable convention, but am not sure if it would
be a universal one.

By existing conventions, I believe the difference between kamkantu and
kamselkantu is merely one of place structure order.

My own instincts probably match your convention:  kamkantu for me is
quantumness - the property of quanta, whereas kamselkantu would be
quantizedness - the property of being quantized/quantable (to coin
several words - Goran is correct that English makes no difference in its
existing voacbulary, but it can fake it %^)

lojbab