Re: [jboske] lo ka ?

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

> I was thinking about this, and I think I've used it before, but
> isn't {ka} on the same footing as {du'u} in that it always designates
> the only member of a singleton set?

I think so, yes.

> (The thing that brought this up is that I was using abstractor
> connectives

Abstractor connectives are evil and should be avoided at
all costs. :)

> ---I wanted le'e nu and le ka. Since the gadri are
> different I got to thinking about this. (I ended up having the
> gadri for {nu} "take precedence" in the connected thing (as
> le'e nujeka), justified by the gadri for {ka} being essentially
> only syntactic since it is always {le})).

How can something be a nu and a ka at the same time? And if
something were both nu and ka, then using {le ka} would suffice,
given that we've agreed that ka is always a singleton. I believe
you want just {nu}. I would say {lo'e nu terpa cu menli catra},
since I don't have some specific set of events in mind to
use {le'e}. Having the property can kill, but I don't think the
property itself can.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963