Re: [lojban] ce'u

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> Alas this is true, I know. The problem with relying on glorking is
that
> common glorking patterns become conventionalized so that the
> conventionalization overrides rational glorking.

They become conventionalized, but can be overridden with an explicit
CA'A.

> > Because I want to be able to call a non-burning but flammable log
a
> > ka'e jelca. The log exists, but its burning only exists in the
> > noosphere.
>
> Oh I see what you meant. Yes, that's right.

Incidentally, I think that this was the original meaning of "si'o": to
describe things in one's noosphere. If I say 'ta ka'e jelca', that
means that 'mi se si'o ta ka'e jelca' and if I say 'lo'e xarju ka'e
vofli', that means that 'mi se si'o lo'e xarju ka'e vofli'.

> > I suppose that's a possibility, but don't true facts exist as much
as
> > events which happen? Would you take that to "fatci", i.e. that
there's
> > no distinction between a ka'e fatci and a ca'a fatci?
>
> I see a distinction between these.

What distinction?

> > Does "le ca'a nu
> > li re su'i re du li vo" exist in spacetime but "le ca'a du'u mi'o
> > casnu la lojban" not exist in spacetime?
>
> le ca'a du'u go'i does not exist in spacetime.
> a ca'a nu does exist in spacetime, but (to my mind) 2+2=4 doesn't;
> hence no da nu 2+2=4.

I think that this is starting to be a philosophical debate without any
really important implications for the grammar, but anyway: In theory,
anything that can be consistently described can be a 'ka'e nu', so I
don't see why 'li resu'ire du li vo' is an exception.

mu'o mi'e .adam.