Re: [lojban] ce'u

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

>>> John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> 08/22/01 08:55pm >>>
#And Rosta wrote:
#> The rationale for li'i was an amputee's real experience of an unreal event.
#> It creates an intensional context
#
#But so does nu.  An event labeled with nu need not have happened
#(le nu co'e cu na fasnu).

And likewise, {le prenu cu na fasnu}, {le prenu cu na zasti}.

Without wanting to rehash or reopen old but unsolved debates, it
creates known logicophilosophical problems when we say talk about 
individuals that don't exist in this world, by saying that they have
certain properties in this world. I'm not saying that this creates nonsense
-- after all, we do intuitively feel it appropriate to be able to say
that there is a famous detective denizen of 221b Baker Street that
we admire -- but at the same time we DO want some way to make it
clear when we are talking about something that does exist in this
world -- the import of "There is a dog with 5 legs" is very different if
we're talking about real dogs from if we're talking about imaginary
dogs.

Now, returning to li'i, the experience exists in the real world but the
event the experiencer perceives themselves to have experienced
does not. So when we are using the mechanisms for talking only
about realworld entities, whatever those mechanisms turn out to
be, li'i broda will not be equivalent to li'i le nu broda.

--And.