Re: properties again

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>The property of being matter causes gravitational force? That doesn't
>sound right to me. I would say:
>
>    le nu ko'a e ko'e marji cu rinka le nu ko'a joi ko'e trina simxu
>    "The event (state) of ko'a and ko'e being matter causes
>    their attracting each other."
>
>I wouldn't replace the event of their being matter by some property,
>which I wouldn't even be claiming that ko'a and/or ko'e possess.

Whereas I would say the same thing but with the first nu replaced by ka,
which does not srictly claim that they possess the property (no ckaji predicate
exists) but that if/when/under conditions that they possess the property,
it causes the event of mutual attraction.  Tecnhically your sentence doesn't
 claim
the latter either - that they have gravity.  Neither does mine.

>If I say {le ka ruble cu rinka le nu ko'a kusru ko'e}, am I saying that
>ko'a being weak causes the cruelty towards ko'e, or ko'e being weak
>is the cause?

I would say leka ko'a ruble cu rinka, assuming I understand the original
quote.  Though it is arguable that the original quote doesn't specifiy who
is being weak to allow/enable the act of cruelty.  I presume that of you don't
 like my explicit inserting of the variable, that there is a suitable way to
express it with lambda.

>Well, I always have the hope of convincing others. I know it's unlikely
>that I will convince you of anything.

It HAS happenned %^)

lojbab