I'm sorry. I'm probably just being an ignorant non-philosopher but, well, here goes.
Let the Cummerbund (big C) be defined as being that which all dogs desire AND also all dogs AND also the ultimate form of Dog (in the platonic world of forms sense). Now, do we have a lojban gismu for this new idea?
If you want to talk about some concept that nobody has ever dreamt of before then just coin a new fu'ivla and spend a few years writing philosophical argle-bargle to describe what this fu'ivla really means in the deep philosophical sense.
Ok, me being a jerk aside. It sounds like in it's more generic form, you're asking if it's possible to:
Describe X as being A AND B but while also specifying that A and B are in reality the same thing and then to take X, A, AND B and refer to them as a single thing.
lo kamjorne be fa ABU bei BY be'o noi ri du ra ku'o jo'u ABY jo'u BY
Incidentally, is there a better way to refer to abu and by in the general case {lo broda be abu bei by be'o poi <want to refer to abu and by here>}. My first thought was {lo se ke'a} and {lo te ke'a} but it turns out that those are not legal.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Escape Landsome
<escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the continuum-based semantics is a part of some linguistics
systems, e.g. Culioli's semantics, but I won't argue about this now.
The point is that an intrication of two notions *should* be a notion
of its own. Write it A+B if something is both A and B, as in
multiple object-oriented-programming inheritance...
The Question (with big Q) is both a quest and the specific questions
that embody this specific quest : I admit this is to some point
non-logical, or, as you say, argle-bargle, but philosophy is full of
such argle-bargle, and it benefits it... The Question is somewhat
like the Dao. Do you know the Dao ? I guess you do. Dao is a word
that means "Way", and that suggests a Principle, or a Cause, or an
Order, or a Law, or Means. So, by this same OOP-multiple inheritance
scheme, Dao is the "sum" of all of these notions. If you were right,
a good lojbanist should use a dozen of lojban words tied together to
say "Dao", or perhaps, as I guess, he should create a special new word
to convey the special meaning of it.
That's the same question with the Question (no pun intended). Either
it is just argle-bargle, and we replace the word "Question" by either
"quest" or "question" or "questioning" in the opus (but then, we miss
the philosophic point which is to convey the idea that all three
things amount to the same existentialist process), either this is *no*
argle-bargle (that is, we admit a notion can cross several other
notions and mix them together), and we need to say "the
quest+question+questioning" each time we want to translate the words
"the Question"... or perhaps, we just say "the shmurf", assuming
shmurf is the neologism created to term "Question".
-- .esk