Re: RV: properties again

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>When I observe lo nu klama, i recognize that it is taking place by certain
>properties.  I may observe a moving thing, but I cannot call it lo klama
>without also recognizing le se klama le te klama le ve klama and le xe
klama.

Agreed.

>I observe all of these at once interacting - none of them exist on their
own
>independent of the others, or there is no nu klama.

Here I don't agree, but maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you
mean. For example:

     mi zgana le nu la kolin cu klama le zdani le briju le ri'erla'i lei
tuple
     "I observe the event of Colin going home from work along
     the riverside on his legs."

That doesn't mean that Colin, his home, his workplace, the riverside
and his legs don't exist on their own. Maybe what you mean is that it
wouldn't make much sense to describe those things, which exist
independently of the {klama} relationship among them, as {le klama},
{le se klama}, etc. unless the relationship holds. If that's what you
mean, I agree.

>Those interactions which
>are common to all nu klama are the nature of the klama relationship, which
I
>call ka klama.  When you stick a ce'u in there you are focussing on this
>abstraction from the point of view of the particular place that contains
ce'u.

Those interactions common to all nu klama would be {le ka ce'u klama ce'u
ce'u ce'u ce'u}. That must be what you call {le ka klama}. If you fill one
of
those places, then you are left with a four-place relationship. For example,
{le ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u le mi karce} cannot be the interactions
common to all nu klama. It can only be the interactions common to all
those nu klama that have my car as the vehicle. If you fill more places,
you are left with a relationship among less arguments, obviously.
{le ka ce'u klama le zdani le briju le ri'erla'i lei tuple} is a
relationship
of one argument only, more commonly called a property, because
"relationship" requires at least two arguments to be related. That
property is, if you like, the interactions common to all nu klama that
have the home as the destination, the workplace as the starting point,
the riverside as the route, and the legs as the means of transportation.
That property may have one, several, or even no arguments that satisfy
it. And someone having or not having that property may have effects.
But the property in itself is not something that can cause anything.

 >  I suspec that you could change my leka to lenu when you see it
>and understand correctly.

I suspect so too. In fact, I suspect that we could use a single member
of NU to replace all of them and still understand correctly, because
the place in which they appear practically always determines which
of the NU should go there.

>I may someday find THE example that shows the
>difference between what I consider to be two different uses of lenu that
>would result from this.

That would be interesting.

 >>Perhaps {le ka ruble cu rinka le ka kusru} can be forced to mean
>>that having the first property causes one to have the second one.
>>It would still be stretching the meaning of {rinka}.
>
 >xu leka ce'u ruble kei ji leka ruble ce'u cu rinka
>leka ce'u kusru ji leka kusru ce'u

Without further context, the usual assumption is that {ce'u} goes
in the first place not explicitly filled, so we'd have {le ka ce'u ruble}
and {le ka ce'u kusru}. Of course, if something else was meant
 it can be made explicit. But I still think that it is stretching the
meaning of {rinka}.

co'o mi'e xorxes