From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu Dec 09 12:18:30 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 21679 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2004 20:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2004 20:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ratanakiri.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.37) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2004 20:18:29 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by ratanakiri.reutershealth.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id iB9KISpP018986 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:18:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:18:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:18:27 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20041209201827.GN31601@skunk.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 65.246.141.37 From: John Cowan Subject: John Cowan's view on reification X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23478 My view on Lojban's view of reification: Everything that a sumti refers to, not within the scope of a negation, is reified. That includes abstract le nu/lo nu things, le'e things, lo'e things, and the works. You may perhaps find an exception to this general principle, but I can probably explain it away. Ya happy now, rlpowell? -- "We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty. Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just, so very just." --Gollum jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan