On Monday, April 28, 2014 5:33:08 PM UTC-4, xorxes wrote:
most predicates that involve properties presuppose that things can have properties "to a degree". For example in "ko'a zmadu ko'e ko'i", both ko'a and ko'e could have property ko'i, but ko'a has more of it.
.uasai se'anai mi ca pu'o djuno, So to distinguish a state from a property, could I say that properties and states are the same except a state denotes a binary "has it / doesn't have it," and a property denotes a scalar "degree to which it has it / doesn't have it?" Except states don't have an implicit {ce'u}...
In other words: If {lo nu zo'e blanu} occurs, then {ja'abo lo za'i zo'e blanu} in {lo ka [ce'u] blanu}.
Not sure what you mean by the last part. If "lo nu ko'a blanu" occurs, then "ko'a ckaji lo ka ce'u blanu".
Looking back over it, I'm not so sure I know what I meant by that last part... I think I was trying to say that a state is the (binary) degree of a property. In this way, everything would have the property of blueness, it's just a matter of whether that property is in the state of TRUE or FALSE at any given moment. I now disagree with that previous statement...
Am I close, or am I just stressing out about this too much?
Probably both :)
.ie je .a'enairo'e (PS: is it fair to logically connect attitudinals as I just did? I chose a jek because I consider the additive nature of compound attitudinals similar to the vague relationship in tanru.)
Again, ki'e .xorxes.
mi'e .neit. mu'o