From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jan 29 18:35:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 30 Jan 2002 02:35:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 97303 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2002 02:35:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2002 02:35:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2002 02:35:36 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.c9.1c79be81 (3958) for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:35:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:35:21 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] signs and seasons and days and years To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c9.1c79be81.2988b5e9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13099 --part1_c9.1c79be81.2988b5e9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/29/2002 4:00:33 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > > How about an imperative with {ko} identified as the lights. How did you > do > > "fiat lux" at the beginning? > > That would sound far too awkward. I like the {ca'e} idea. > >From pier's example earlier it seems rather simpler than the alternatives given. And, even though "imperatives are not imperious" I think they clearly are more abrupt than {e'o} and the like. I don't get {ca'e} at all. A definition does not call anything into existence and, further, this does not have form of a definition -- of what? xorxes: {bacru} is more logical, one might think, but all of Creation I is written as though (as was historically the case with the earlier versions) God is discussing it all with the heavenly host or whatever xod: Maybe as fundamental as logic but NOT logic, the connection is presumably causal, not inferential. {ri'a} seems a more natural root. {da} refers to something that already exists, so can't literally be used for calling something into existence (this has been a problem as long as Abramics have tried logic on their religions). {ko} is safer because less specific. --part1_c9.1c79be81.2988b5e9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/29/2002 4:00:33 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


> How about an imperative with {ko} identified as the lights.  How did you do
> "fiat lux" at the beginning?

That would sound far too awkward. I like the {ca'e} idea.


>From pier's example earlier it seems rather simpler than the alternatives given.  And, even though "imperatives are not imperious" I think they clearly are more abrupt than {e'o} and the like.

I don't get {ca'e} at all.  A definition does not call anything into existence and, further, this does not have form of a definition  -- of what?

xorxes:
<And can it be said that there was any cuskuing, given
that there was nobody else around yet? Or was He
talking to Himself?>

{bacru} is more logical, one might think, but all of Creation I is written as though (as was historically the case with the earlier versions) God is discussing it all with the heavenly host or whatever

xod:
<C cusku lu ca'e da gusni li'u .iseni'ibo co'a gusni

You've got the existence in the da, and the ni'i because we're supposed to
be dealing with something that's as fundamental as logic.>

Maybe as fundamental as logic but NOT logic, the connection is presumably causal, not inferential.  {ri'a} seems a more natural root.
{da} refers to something that already exists, so can't literally be used for calling something into existence (this has been a problem as long as Abramics have tried logic on their religions).  {ko} is safer because less specific.



 --part1_c9.1c79be81.2988b5e9_boundary--