Date:         Wed, 20 May 1998 23:11:16 -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:      Re: properties again
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <895717780.205953.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 2270
Lines: 50


la lojbab mi di'e spuda
>>    le nu ko'a e ko'e marji cu rinka le nu ko'a joi ko'e trina simxu
>>    "The event (state) of ko'a and ko'e being matter causes
>>    their attracting each other."
>
 >Whereas I would say the same thing but with the first nu replaced by ka,
>which does not srictly claim that they possess the property (no ckaji
predicate
>exists) but that if/when/under conditions that they possess the property,
>it causes the event of mutual attraction.  Tecnhically your sentence
doesn't claim
>the latter either - that they have gravity.  Neither does mine.

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.

 >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}?

> I presume that of you don't like my explicit inserting of the variable,

You're absolutely right.

> that there is a suitable way to express it with lambda.

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}. 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
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.

co'o mi'e xorxes