From lojban+bncCMGclZyxExDY_srxBBoEBMaqTQ@googlegroups.com Fri Jul 29 07:10:46 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qmnlz-0000cf-8L; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:46 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf1846194vws.16 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=xtlkijwGcqK91xmuA+CHhsVf793AMwSQF366wL+2+SQ=; b=eV3KJNZaNjefRpYIVHXOGfwLYHe6hyxsgLFegNnTBxUFrp9nNCtxtjOThUwkJCh3Ov 1NoKgI4aFAeFz9gTG+t1uABhX1qZwXNWULHNmYzIDMsf53p7CExfb/14+PBU1jzq0ukn GBW3ALTznP1hLlupApb0IHpakcbBJEzkG+bec= Received: by 10.220.189.134 with SMTP id de6mr248779vcb.32.1311948632778; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.75.161 with SMTP id d1ls2222327vdw.3.gmail; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.93.65 with SMTP id cs1mr358296vdb.44.1311948631522; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.93.65 with SMTP id cs1mr358295vdb.44.1311948631514; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f45.google.com (mail-vw0-f45.google.com [209.85.212.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v20si2605559vdu.2.2011.07.29.07.10.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.45; Received: by mail-vw0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 17so3865027vws.18 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.176.101 with SMTP id ch5mr1448436vdc.129.1311948631358; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.186.231 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:10:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201107191408.50207.phma@phma.optus.nu> <1311780839.58357.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311870454.18589.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1311886424.23009.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:10:31 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities From: Escape Landsome To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: escaaape@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=escaaape@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Luke, I am not doggy-philosophically qualified to tell if Cummerbund is a valid concept. But Dao is regarded by philosophers as a valid concept even if it embodies some multiple inheritance... Also, I don't think you're ignorant, you just have a more mathematics-polarized mind than me (besides, this is not plainly exact, I think OOP-multiple inheritance can be mathematically-logically understood). Why not being entitled to mix notions together ? After all, what is "agit-prop" ? This term refers to a specific mix of "agitation" and "propaganda". Hence, the soviet neologism. This is a particular case of deciding it is valuable, to some extent and for some usage, to mix up together A and B, and get the mixed-notion (A+B). There are many other examples in language, either in tool names, in philosophic or political concepts, in some caracterisation of some hybrid species, and so on... You would argue that mixing up concepts is the kind of "ideological" nonsense, or illogical argle-bargle that Lojban want to get rid of. In some sense, the fact that it occurs a lot in ideology and philosophy, two non-neutral thought-fields, is a hint... But, well, even this is no argument : if someone wants to show that the use of a notion (or a simili-notion) is argle-bargle, it is necessary for him to be able to term it, to design it... thus, it is required we can say even illogical base pseudo-notions in Lojban, even if it be just to trample them down. Someone can scold me, but I think that { speaking of a (both A and B)-object is valid } IFF { speaking of a A-object AND speaking of a B-object are valid }. -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.