From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 27 13:14:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 27 Aug 2001 20:14:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 60345 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 19:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Aug 2001 19:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 19:59:47 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.43]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010827195940.QCDU710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:59:40 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ce'u Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:58:50 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <06ce01c12f10$10dd3800$87b4003e@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10171 Adam: > la and. cusku di'e > > #The ones that fasnu in the contextually-established realworld > > #spacetime are a ca'a fasnu, a ca'a gerku, and a ca'a prenu. The > > #ones that merely zasti in the noosphere are a ka'e fasnu, a ka'e > > #gerku and a ka'e prenu. > > > > Assuming, counterfactually, that I am happy to buy this, what is the > > difference between ka'e nu and ca'a nu? If you (and others) agree > > that it's exactly parallel to the difference between ka'e fasnu and > > ca'a fasnu and ka'e gerku and ca'a gerku, then I think I'll be satisfied... > > Okay, I'll agree to that. A "ka'e nu" is a mental construct whereas a > "ca'a nu" actually occurs. Then when we say "le nu", we mean "le ka'e > nu" (at least when it is plausible, as in "le [ka'e] nu broda cu nibli > le [ka'e] nu brode"). So what is special about nu is that it is usually (by people other than me) understood as nu, whereas other selbri are normally understood as ca'a. Well at least that's not irrational. > This doesn't mean, however, that every "ka'ejenaica'a broda" exists > only in the noosphere, just that its broda-ness exists only in the > noosphere. Why not? > We can extend this to other abstractors: a "ka'e ka" isn't necessarily > manifested; a "ca'a ka" is manifested and is a "ca'a se ckaji". a > "ka'e du'u" isn't necessarily true; a "ca'a du'u" is true and is a > "ca'a fatci". I think you've gone wrong here. A ca'a du'u is something that actually is a du'u, not a du'u that is true. Or so I understand it. Du'u, like numbers, are things whose ca'a-existence remains in the noosphere, so for them there is no difference between ka'e-existence and ca'a existence. > Maybe x2 of ka will work after all. I to'ecai to'e to'e support that. I know I indirectly caused the idea to appear, but I've since tried to knock it on the head. [I originally had two to'es for emphasis, but then realized that they probably cancel each other out. Is that right? --And.