Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:10:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711301410.JAA26554@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: dacti X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1214 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 30 09:10:53 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >xorxes: >>Events that happen, like persons, are objects that endure in >>space time. > >.ue >You are claiming that an event is a dacti??! I don't think of an event >as an object. Indeed, it may even be to'e dacti on some scale. Events that happen certainly occupy space and last in time, so that I suppose you're not objecting to the "endure in space-time" bit, right? As for "object", I was using it in the general sense of "thingy". >If you interpret the words "object enduring in space time" to include >abstarctions, we need a better wording of the definition. Well, yes, if dacti is supposed to be more restricted than that, then a clearer definition might be in order. >Indeed, I >think "object enduring in space time" excludes anything without physical >bounds and structure (is a gas, plasma, or liquid an object? lo dacti?). Then you definitely need to be more clear. Is the sun a dacti? Is the earth a dacti? Is a mountain a dacti? Is a cloud a dacti? I would have said yes to all of those, but now you make me doubt, because I probably wouldn't call them "objects" in English in the more restricted sense of things that you can handle. Is dacti supposed to be so restricted? co'o mi'e xorxes