From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 03 14:49:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 21:49:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 80574 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 21:49:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 21:49:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 21:49:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.27.194a55d3 (4543) for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <27.194a55d3.289c7669@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:49:29 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u (was: vliju'a To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_27.194a55d3.289c7669_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9133 --part1_27.194a55d3.289c7669_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/3/2001 4:22:45 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > ni'o I recall a while ago I offered an analogy of ka:ce'u::du'u:makau, yet > nobody else thought they were anything alike! But they seem directly > parallel to me. Both are abstractions, and both ce'u and makau focus the > abstraction into a certain place of the abstracted bridi. > But every {ka} seems to require a {ce'u}, implicitly or not, while most {du'u} don't have a {makau} or a {kau} of any sort. Also, the {du'u makau} reduces eventually to the referent of {makau} while the {ka ce'u} remains abstract, the property. --part1_27.194a55d3.289c7669_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/3/2001 4:22:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


ni'o I recall a while ago I offered an analogy of ka:ce'u::du'u:makau, yet
nobody else thought they were anything alike! But they seem directly
parallel to me. Both are abstractions, and both ce'u and makau focus the
abstraction into a certain place of the abstracted bridi.


But every {ka} seems to require a {ce'u}, implicitly or not, while most
{du'u} don't have a {makau} or a {kau} of any sort. Also, the {du'u makau}
reduces eventually to the referent of {makau} while the {ka ce'u} remains
abstract, the property. --part1_27.194a55d3.289c7669_boundary--