Still, if they are the same, the result is either one of them.= .

From: Luke Berg= en <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
T= o: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 29, 2011 9:28:16 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and = other technicalities

I meant A together with B not the logical AND.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:21 AM, John E Clifford &= lt;kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

I do hope that what you are de= scribing is not quite the point. A AND B (in just about any sense of = AND) is just A if A and B are the same. and, if that is X, then X is A, too= . So, assuming we have a word for A (B would do just as well) w= e have a word for X. I assume something more is meant, but I cannot e= licit a coherent description of what that is. I am inclined to doubt = that what is wanted is a concept no one ever dreamed of before, but it is n= ot likely to be in the current Lojban vocabulary -- L doesn't do a lot of p= hilosophy and what it does tends to be analytic, not phenomenological/exist= entialist. The problem with finding a new word for it -- if we insist= on an analytic construction -- is the nebulousness of the notion, which seems to defy analysis (skipping over understanding). If it should ever become (relatively)= clear, a proper analytic construction would be easy. In the me= antime, just about anything that is in proper form and not already used wil= l do fine (with the book you mentioned attached, of course). Humpty-d= umptyism has it uses.

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 29, 2011 8:= 55:07 AM

Subject:= Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities
<= /div>

I'm sorry. I'm probably just being an ignorant non-philosopher but, w= ell, here goes.

Let the Cummerbund (big C) be defin= ed as being that which all dogs desire AND also all dogs AND also the ultim= ate form of Dog (in the platonic world of forms sense). Now, do we ha= ve a lojban gismu for this new idea?

If you want to talk about some concept that nobody has = ever dreamt of before then just coin a new fu'ivla and spend a few years wr= iting philosophical argle-bargle to describe what this fu'ivla really me= ans in the deep philosophical sense.

Ok, me being a jerk aside. It sounds like in it's= more generic form, you're asking if it's possible to:
Describe X= as being A AND B but while also specifying that A and B are in reality the= same thing and then to take X, A, AND B and refer to them as a single thin= g.

lo kamjorne be fa ABU bei BY be'o noi ri du ra ku'o jo'= u ABY jo'u BY

Incidentally, is there a better way = to refer to abu and by in the general case {lo broda be abu bei by be'o poi= <want to refer to abu and by here>}. My first thought was {lo = se ke'a} and {lo te ke'a} but it turns out that those are not legal.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Escape= Landsome <escaaap= e@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the continuum-based semantics is a part of some linguistics
systems, e.g. Culioli's semantics, but I won't argue about this now.

The point is that an intrication of two notions *should* be a notion
of its own. Write it A+B if something is both A and B, as in
multiple object-oriented-programming inheritance...

The Question (with big Q) is both a quest and the specific questions
that embody this specific quest : I admit this is to some point
non-logical, or, as you say, argle-bargle, but philosophy is full of
such argle-bargle, and it benefits it... The Question is somewhat
like the Dao. Do you know the Dao ? I guess you do. Dao = is a word
that means "Way", and that suggests a Principle, or a Cause, or an
Order, or a Law, or Means. So, by this same OOP-multiple inheritance=
scheme, Dao is the "sum" of all of these notions. If you were right,=
a good lojbanist should use a dozen of lojban words tied together to
say "Dao", or perhaps, as I guess, he should create a special new word
to convey the special meaning of it.

That's the same question with the Question (no pun intended). Either=
it is just argle-bargle, and we replace the word "Question" by either
"quest" or "question" or "questioning" in the opus (but then, we miss
the philosophic point which is to convey the idea that all three
things amount to the same existentialist process), either this is *no*
argle-bargle (that is, we admit a notion can cross several other
notions and mix them together), and we need to say "the
quest+question+questioning" each time we want to translate the words
"the Question"... or perhaps, we just say "the shmurf", assuming
shmurf is the neologism created to term "Question".

-- .esk

--
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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?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.