From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Dec 09 12:24:55 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 64543 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2004 20:24:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2004 20:24:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2004 20:24:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CcUqM-0002Rl-2B for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:54 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CcUqC-0002RQ-1n; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:44 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CcUpz-0002RD-S1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:24:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:24:31 -0800 Message-ID: <20041209202431.GE10796@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20041209201827.GN31601@skunk.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041209201827.GN31601@skunk.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-archive-position: 9078 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: John Cowan's view on reification X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23479 This is actually BPFK business, so the rest of you can ignore it. On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:18:27PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > 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? As long as that means you're comfortable with (in xorlo) the idea that {re lo ci broda} is one broda and {re loi ci broda} is six broda, and as long as xorxes feels his outstanding questions to you have been answered, yep. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/