From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 14 18:07:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 01:07:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 74417 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 00:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 00:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 00:33:41 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.163]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010915003339.NOIL29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:33:39 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:32:54 +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: <4.3.2.7.2.20010910142433.00b0c430@pop.cais.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10716 Lojbab: > At 04:57 PM 9/7/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >I don't know how su'u x1 and x2 are supposed to work, and nor do I know > >how to implement what I argued for above. However, very tentatively, > >and intuitively, I could start the ball rolling with this: > > > > tu'o si'o cinfo kei se su'u ce'u xabju le friko > > > >as a way of saying that the archetypal lion archetypally-has the > >property of living in Africa. As for "We discussed the archetypal lion", > >I don't know. Maybe > > > > mi'a simxu tu'o du'u ce'u ce'u tavla loi su'u be tu'o si'o cinfo > > > >All this is just a first stab, and there to be improved on. > > Nora and I, with less than full reading of all these intertwining threads > of abstractors seem to glorkjunkie that si'o is supposed to be the > archetype that you are talking about above. If this is the case then lo'e > is a manifestation of that archetype (and not the archetype itself (which > manifestation may or may not actually exist in the real world)). We > discuss ideas, and not manifestations of those ideas. > > More specifically, while lo pavyseljirna may not exist, lo'e pavyseljirna > is something that people draw pictures and write books about as if such > things did exist, and those things are distinct from the ideas/ideals we > have of them: the idea of a unicorn is not going to carry a fair maiden, > the manifestation of that idea would do so. > > Now it might still be the case that we should use something like lo'e tanxe in > mi sisku lo'e tanxe, because we probably aren't seeking properties, but > manifestations that have the property. This is not quite what Jorge had > in mind since it does not equate ka and lo'e, but it might clarify/correct > what is intended when we talk about seeking a property (which if people > recall was introduced to keep people from searching for noda when they were > searching for lo pavyseljirna which does not exist). Start by telling me how you distinguish "The (generic) lion lives in Africa" from "We discussed the (generic) lion". The distinction is analogous to that between "ro lu'a lo'i" and "lo'i" -- "ro lu'a lo'i cinfo cu xabju le friko" and "mi'o tavla fi lo'i cinfo" --And.