* Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 18:58 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 17:15 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >> And even so, mere set disjointness doesn't seem to get at the heart of
> >> the matter, which is probably in the x3 of klesi:
> >>
> >> "lo ranmapku jo'u lo bolmapku cu ficysi'u lo ka ce'u klesi lo mapku ma kau"
> >
> > Yes, good. So I'd want to add three characters:
> > {lo ranmaplei jo'u lo bolmaplei cu ficysi'u lo ka ce'u klesi lo maplei ma kau}
>
> You could extend that method to all predicates. So instead of:
>
> lo prenu cu klama lo zarci lo zdani lo dargu lo karce
>
> you can say:
>
> lo prekla cu klama lo zacyselkla lo zdaterkla lo dagvelkla lo karcyxelkla
Are you mocking me? zo'o
There's no problem with prenu klamaing; there is a problem with ranmapku
klesiing.
> >> >> Why is beret - hat - garment artificial?
> >> > But they're all on the same level, no?
> >> As kinds? A beret is a kind of hat, and a hat is a kind of garment.
> >
> > I'm only seeing two levels there - one containing berets and hats, and
> > one containing kinds of hat and kinds of garment.
>
> One level contains the garment, next level down the hat, next level
> down the beret (and a fourth level I hadn't mentioned because it won't
> enter into a klesi relationship contains some particular individual
> beret.) So "klesi" relates two things from different levels.
Oh, no, we're not using the same definition of 'level'.
I was reserving that for the problematic case, where going up a level
corresponding to passing from AE to EA. I believe this corresponds to
(your version of) {mupli}.
I meant to ask for a natural example where we go up two mupli-levels
from mundanes.
Attachment:
pgpm0Q4S9EZai.pgp
Description: PGP signature