Date:         Thu, 21 May 1998 20:56:20 -0300
Reply-To:     "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      RV: properties again
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <895796307.107461.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 2711
Lines: 68


Lojbab:
>Remember that I do not require a ce'u in order to ascribe meaning to ka
broda.
>If you insist on a ce'u, I would make it leka ce'u po'u ko'a .e ko'e cu
marji.
>You will of course have a reason why this means something other than I
>intend %^).

{ce'u po'u ko'a e ko'e} is problematic by itself, because it requires ce'u
to stand for an argument place that must be filled by something that is
both ko'a and ko'e. Since the sentence we're discussing requires ko'a
to be something other than ko'e (in order to attract each other), the
{po'u} construct doesn't work. {le ka ce'u po'u ko'a marji} would be the
property of being ko'a and being material.

>The intent is a property with built in instantiation.

It's a property that only ko'a can have (or in your case something that
is both ko'a and ko'e). But it is still a property, not something that can
be a cause.

> nu
>and its relatives are not appropriate because I am concentrating on the
>neture of the relationship (which is what I ascribe as the meaning of ka)

{ka} gives you the relationship itself, regardless of what arguments
satisfy it or not. That relationship cannot cause an event. I'm not sure
what you mean by the nature of the relationship.

>>But why {le ka ko'a ruble} rather than {le nu ko'a ruble}?
>
>Because lenu is talking about the occurance in time of the relationship,
and
>not about the relationship in itself.

Right, but it is the occurrence in time that can cause other events,
not an abstract relationship by itself.

> lenu talks about lo fasnu and
>leka talks about lo selckaji.

Of course. And lo selckaji doesn't cause events to occur.

> These are so definitional to me that the
>uses that you and Cowan have devised and documented in the Book are
>secondary.  I don't find them troubling or conflicting, but I see them as
>secondary.

I don't follow your argument. How does that support the idea that a
property (a selckaji) could cause anything to happen?

 > Events of weaknesses can cause events of cruelty.  But
>weakness as a quality can more abstractly cause cruelty.

Perhaps {le ka ruble cu rinka le ka kusru} can be forced to mean
that having the first property causes one to have the second one.
It would still be stretching the meaning of {rinka}. But mixing ka
with nu is even stretchier.

co'o mi'e xorxes