In a message dated 1/29/2002 4:00:33 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:> How about an imperative with {ko} identified as the lights. How did you do >From pier's example earlier it seems rather simpler than the alternatives given. And, even though "imperatives are not imperious" I think they clearly are more abrupt than {e'o} and the like. I don't get {ca'e} at all. A definition does not call anything into existence and, further, this does not have form of a definition -- of what? xorxes: <And can it be said that there was any cuskuing, given that there was nobody else around yet? Or was He talking to Himself?> {bacru} is more logical, one might think, but all of Creation I is written as though (as was historically the case with the earlier versions) God is discussing it all with the heavenly host or whatever xod: <C cusku lu ca'e da gusni li'u .iseni'ibo co'a gusni You've got the existence in the da, and the ni'i because we're supposed to be dealing with something that's as fundamental as logic.> Maybe as fundamental as logic but NOT logic, the connection is presumably causal, not inferential. {ri'a} seems a more natural root. {da} refers to something that already exists, so can't literally be used for calling something into existence (this has been a problem as long as Abramics have tried logic on their religions). {ko} is safer because less specific. |