Well, I suppose you could look for instances of ballness among= the set of available things. It does seem odd, though (not the first= such case by any means).

Fr= om: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, July 28, 2011 12:17:48 P= M
Subject: Re: [lojban]= Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

tldr; speaking with infinite precision requires an infinitely v= erbose language

> Thus, I guess the best thing to do is to = create a neologism to
> encapsulate the very special meaning of this = (somewhat ?) "new"
> notion...

What "new" notion? Maybe I'm = just being stupid but it sounds like you're using a lot of words to talk ab= out {lo smuni be lo selfri} or maybe {lo sisku be lo smuni be lo selfri}. &= nbsp;Although in this situation I think that was a pretty poor use of {sisk= u}.

side question: In forming this reply I noticed th= at I have no idea how to say "I looked for the ball". {facki} is abou= t discovering that a {du'u} is true and {sisku} is looking for a property a= mongst a set... whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Escap= e Landsome <escaaa= pe@gmail.com> wrote:

The point is no concept is ontologically pure (and this should be a
problem, even in Lojban). Assume we are talking of "reading a book",=
for instance. Reading a book would be :
1=B0) the process of collect the information of adjacent letters and
words in lines of the pages of the book,
2=B0) the same process, but with the correlative cognitive process of
assigning a meaning (i.e. mental images) to what is pronounced
3=B0) the overall and more global process of entering deeply in the
author thought, in his world, and capture subtleties
4=B0) the same process acted on a whole life, so as to change one's
philosophy (as when you say "I am a Gospel reader")

There IS some connection between all four meanings, in the sense that
4=B0) needs 3=B0) which is necessary for 2=B0) to be carried, which in turn=
is necessary for 1=B0)
Or, you could say, 1=B0) is a substratum of 2=B0), which is one of 3=B0), which is one of 4=B0), and there is pragmatic elaboration from 1=B0) to
4=B0)

I guess that a PERFECT lojbanist would create four sumti for each meaning..= .

But the real problem is that these meanings lie in a CONTINUUM. So,<= br> in fact, one would ideally need an infinite number of sumti, if one
would render each meaning subtlety...

Here, I have a similar problem : what I speak about is a quest about
the meaning of life or the like (you got it), but it is ALSO a
specific question, the question that carries within itself this quest.
This notion is a lojbanic monster, because it should be two broda at
the same time, if we were to use existing broda

Thus, I guess the best thing to do is to create a neologism to
encapsulate the very special meaning of this (somewhat ?) "new"
notion...

Or, perhaps, you have a better idea ? I'm ready for all suggestions<= br>
--

You received this message because = you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.