Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:32:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712201632.LAA21709@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: multiple ce`u (was: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-cc: I@access5.digex.net, So@access5.digex.net, a@access5.digex.net, as@access5.digex.net, disapprove@access5.digex.net, must@access5.digex.net, obscene-movies@access5.digex.net, of@access5.digex.net, property@access5.digex.net, self-standing@access5.digex.net, the@access5.digex.net To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1160 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Dec 20 11:32:49 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >So you enjoy watching the movie and you disapprove of the movie >having those properties. But it is not the properties themselves >that you enjoy or disapprove of: This is not correct. I disapprove of the mo ambiguous and probably incorrect. I disapprove of movies which have these properties (restrictive) I approve of the movie, which incidentally has these properties (non-restricti - restrictive). These seem conrtradictory, since a ny movie which fits the former sentence also fits the latter sentence, if read solely as restrictive/non-restrictive. Thus one has to presume that ther e is something about the relationship between the moive and its identifying factor in the former sentence that changes the meaning so that it is not merely the movie that I disapprove of. One possibility would be that I disapprove of the fact that the movie is characterized by these properties. But why do I so disapprove? Because I disapprove of the properties, and not the movie. Yet I do not disapprove of t the properties in an absolute sense independent of the movie. That which makes a movie vulgar/obscene is perfectly appropriate in some bedrooms