Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:51:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712191651.LAA16585@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: multiple ce`u (was: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2008 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 19 11:51:45 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab: > >I still can't figure out what it means to approve of a property. > >Is it like approving of there being holders of the property? > >Does {mi zanru le ka ce'u melbi} mean that I'm not opposed > >to there being beautiful things? No, but that would be {mi zanru > >le nu da melbi}. What exactly does {mi zanru le ka melbi} mean? > > > >co'o mi'e xorxes > > Can you imagine enjoying a property? If so, then recognize that one can enjoy > something without approving of it (for me the properties of X-rated movies thta > makes them X-rated might apply - I can enjoy them animalistically while > disapproving of their being part of the movie). One cannot state this > without being able to state approval or disapproval of properties. > > In English, I might say for the above that I do not approve of Vulgarity. It's hard to reason about this, but one can draw a distinction between (a) ka with multiple ce`u e.g. the relationship of x being a sex-scene in film y (b) ka with single ce`u e,g. the category of films with sex-scenes in or the category of things that are sex-scenes in a film (c) du`u = ka with no ce`u e.g. the proposition that there is a film with a sex scene in My feeling is that (c) really gets closest to what you disapprove of. You thing that it would be good for it to be false that there is a film with a sex scene in, and it would be bad for it to be true. Even then, you don't disapprove of the proposition per se, but rather of its being true. I think zanru would have to be defined as: x1 approves of x2 being true. (Much as {jinvi} is "x1 believes x2 to be true".) So I suppose you could say that zanru with a ka sumti could be defined as "x1 approves of category/relationship x2 being instantiated". The end result would be that the meaning of zanru would vary according to whether its x2 denoted a proposition, a property or something else. That might be undesirable, but its already how things work (e.g. we noticed it with {cucli}). --And