Date:         Thu, 21 May 1998 14:31:57 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: properties again
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <895775558.209301.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 2773
Lines: 57


>I don't understand why you would prefer {le ka ko'a e ko'e marji}.
>That to me means {le ka ko'a e ko'e marji ce'u}, "the property of being
>the material composition of koha and kohe". That property does
>not cause their attraction.

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 %^).  The intent is a property with built in instantiation.  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)
and not on the existance in time and associated structure of that relationship
 that I ascribe to the nu family.

> >I would say leka ko'a ruble cu rinka, assuming I understand the original
>>quote.  Though it is arguable that the original quote doesn't specifiy who
>>is being weak to allow/enable the act of cruelty.
>
>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.  lenu talks about lo fasnu and
leka talks about lo selckaji.  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.

>None that I can think of. It is not a property that causes anything.
>The basic meaning of {rinka} requires an event in the x1, an event
>causes another event. I hope you don't object to {le nu ko'a ruble
>cu rinka le nu ko'a kusru}.

Of couurse not.  Events of weaknesses can cause events of cruelty.  But
weakness as a quality can more abstractly cause cruelty.

>Now, it would also be possible to say
>something like: {le nu ko'a ckaji le ka ruble cu rinka le nu ko'a
>kusru} = "Koha's having the property of being weak causes
>koha's being cruel". But from that to saying that the property
>--More--
>itself rather than koha's having it causes koha's cruelty is the
>usual sumti raising. It is neither koha nor the property of weakness
>that causes the cruelty. It is koha having the property.

I see what you are saying.  But when one wishes to generalize for all ko'a,
then it seems to me that the instantiation with universal ko'a should not
be necessary.

lojbab