Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:58:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712131558.KAA21838@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: ka'e X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1314 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Dec 13 10:58:48 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >>What makes me uncomfortable is its seemeingly extreme >>subjectivity. > >Is there something wrong with subjectivity? Not with subjectivity in itself. I'm uncomfortable with {ka'e} being defined in such a subjective manner that I can't tell what it means. I don't understand how {lo remna ka'e vofli} can be false while {lo remna ca'a vofli} is true. >>And if making human fly is not an innate property of planes, then I don't >>know what is. > >Indeed. And I have no problem with lo remna ka'e vofli lo vinji - I just >don't think thatis part of the in-mond set of x2s when x2 is elliptical. Well, that's what you think. How do I know in general whether a ka'e statement is true? Do I have to ask you what are the natural in-mind set of ellipticals? >Surely we can talk of properties of functions? Yes, of course. {le ka ckaji ce'u} is the property of being a property. {le ka la rik la alis zmadu ce'u} is the property of being what Rick exceeds Alice at, and so on. >People ka'e walk on sidewalks > >ka'e seems to be useful mostly in making statements of generalities of this >sort. It should be noted that {ka'e} has been used with a more general meaning, not only for generalities. {ka'e broda} in usage often means {cumki fa le nu broda} rather than {jizbri fa le du'u broda}. co'o mi'e xorxes