RE: [lojban] ce'u

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Xod:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > Adam:
> > > la .and. cusku di'e
> > > > > 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?
> >
> > A fatci is something that is true of the local universe. A ka'e fatci
> > then is something that could be true of the local universe and a ca'a
> > fatci is something that actually is true of the local universe.
> > "X dies before X is born" is not a ka'e fatci. "I live in Paris" is
> > a ka'e but not a ca'a fatci. "I live in London" is a ka'e and a ca'a
> > fatci.
> 
> You are treading on conceptually thin ice when you categorize falsehoods
> into possibles and impossibles. Such activity involves non-provable
> statements.

Nonetheless, the distinction is the stuff of everyday science and indeed
of ordinary everyday thought, and hence it is a good thing that the
language allows us to distinguish between na ka'e fatci, ka'e fatci and 
ca'a fatci, even if you want to challenge either the philosophical basis 
for that distinction or our ability to distinguish na ka'e fatci from ja'a 
ka'e fatci.

--And.