RE: [lojban] ce'u

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

Adam:
> la and. cusku di'e
> > #The ones that fasnu in the contextually-established realworld
> > #spacetime are a ca'a fasnu, a ca'a gerku, and a ca'a prenu. The 
> > #ones that merely zasti in the noosphere are a ka'e fasnu, a ka'e 
> > #gerku and a ka'e prenu.
> >
> > Assuming, counterfactually, that I am happy to buy this, what is the
> > difference between ka'e nu and ca'a nu? If you (and others) agree
> > that it's exactly parallel to the difference between ka'e fasnu and 
> > ca'a fasnu and ka'e gerku and ca'a gerku, then I think I'll be satisfied...
> 
> Okay, I'll agree to that. A "ka'e nu" is a mental construct whereas a
> "ca'a nu" actually occurs. Then when we say "le nu", we mean "le ka'e
> nu" (at least when it is plausible, as in "le [ka'e] nu broda cu nibli
> le [ka'e] nu brode"). 

So what is special about nu is that it is usually (by people other than
me) understood as nu, whereas other selbri are normally understood as 
ca'a. Well at least that's not irrational.

> This doesn't mean, however, that every "ka'ejenaica'a broda" exists 
> only in the noosphere, just that its broda-ness exists only in the 
> noosphere.

Why not? 

> We can extend this to other abstractors: a "ka'e ka" isn't necessarily
> manifested; a "ca'a ka" is manifested and is a "ca'a se ckaji". a
> "ka'e du'u" isn't necessarily true; a "ca'a du'u" is true and is a
> "ca'a fatci".

I think you've gone wrong here. A ca'a du'u is something that actually
is a du'u, not a du'u that is true. Or so I understand it. Du'u, like
numbers, are things whose ca'a-existence remains in the noosphere, so
for them there is no difference between ka'e-existence and ca'a existence.
 
> Maybe x2 of ka will work after all.

I to'ecai to'e to'e support that. I know I indirectly caused the idea
to appear, but I've since tried to knock it on the head.

[I originally had two to'es for emphasis, but then realized that they
probably cancel each other out. Is that right?

--And.