From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Apr 10 22:00:52 1996 Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA11301 ; Wed, 10 Apr 96 22:00:49 BST Received: from punt-3.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 829161268:16436:1; Wed, 10 Apr 96 19:34:28 BST Received: from relay-1.mail.demon.net ([158.152.1.140]) by punt-3.mail.demon.net id aa16060; 10 Apr 96 19:33 +0100 Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by relay-1.mail.demon.net id aa08844; 10 Apr 96 19:31 +0100 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4619; Wed, 10 Apr 96 14:26:42 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8204; Wed, 10 Apr 96 14:26:14 EDT Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:25:03 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: *kamkantu X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <829161102.8844.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R 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