Re: [lojban] ce'u

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

la .and cusku di'e

> 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.

The book says that a "broda" might be a "ka'e broda", and which CA'A
can be glorked from context. So whether it's a "ka'e nu" or "ca'a nu"
can be guessed from the selbri (among other things).

> > 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?

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.

> > 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.

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? 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?

At any rate, that's the most plausible distinction if there's one to
be made.

> > 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.

Why? Because of the baseline? If a "ca'a ka" is an actually manifested
property (as I maintain), it has to be manifested in something,
doesn't it?

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

Probably. I think you can say "je'a [je'a...] to'e".

mu'o mi'e adam.