From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 07 09:07:36 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 16:07:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 14221 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 15:57:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 15:57:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 15:57:46 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.175]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
          id <20010907155745.LBUS29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:57:45 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] ce'u
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:57:01 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGELOEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0109062254420.17357-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10541

Xod:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > Adam:
> > > la .and. cusku di'e
> > > > > I suppose that's a possibility, but don't true facts exist as much
> > > as
> > > > > events which happen? Would you take that to "fatci", i.e. that
> > > there's
> > > > > no distinction between a ka'e fatci and a ca'a fatci?
> > > >
> > > > I see a distinction between these.
> > >
> > > What distinction?
> >
> > A fatci is something that is true of the local universe. A ka'e fatci
> > then is something that could be true of the local universe and a ca'a
> > fatci is something that actually is true of the local universe.
> > "X dies before X is born" is not a ka'e fatci. "I live in Paris" is
> > a ka'e but not a ca'a fatci. "I live in London" is a ka'e and a ca'a
> > fatci.
> 
> You are treading on conceptually thin ice when you categorize falsehoods
> into possibles and impossibles. Such activity involves non-provable
> statements.

Nonetheless, the distinction is the stuff of everyday science and indeed
of ordinary everyday thought, and hence it is a good thing that the
language allows us to distinguish between na ka'e fatci, ka'e fatci and 
ca'a fatci, even if you want to challenge either the philosophical basis 
for that distinction or our ability to distinguish na ka'e fatci from ja'a 
ka'e fatci.

--And.