Date:  Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:55:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710102355.SAA05740@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Dvorak (& Lojban)
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199710092325.RAA05443@indra.com>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 703
Lines: 16

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:
> >A short object will have a small amount of
> >longness, and sure enough this corresponds to length.
>
> The trouble with this is that length is objective, while longness
> is subjective. A not very long river may have greater length
> than a very long road, for example. So here amount of longness
> would seem to go against length.

I think this apparent paradox isn't because clani is subjective, but
because le'e dargu le'e rirxe cu frica leni te clani ka'u.  The
subjectivity comes from speaker and listener assuming together that the
x3's will be different, not from any necessary subjectivity inherent in
clani.

co'o mi'e kris