From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 27 20:36:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 03:36:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 80058 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 03:36:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 03:36:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 03:36:03 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.122]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010828033601.JKHE23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:36:01 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ce'u Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:34:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00f601c12f5d$57f7b4c0$8ab5003e@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam: > 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). Alas this is true, I know. The problem with relying on glorking is that common glorking patterns become conventionalized so that the conventionalization overrides rational glorking. > > > 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. Oh I see what you meant. Yes, that's right. > > > 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? I see a distinction between these. > 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? le ca'a du'u go'i does not exist in spacetime. a ca'a nu does exist in spacetime, but (to my mind) 2+2=4 doesn't; hence no da nu 2+2=4. > 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 don't agree that ca'a ka is meaningful. The main reason I oppose x2 of ka is that -- O sod it: my brain has died from prolonged sleep deprivation. Okay I only milxe to'e zanru it, then, because I can't reconstruct my rationale for opposing it, but recall having had one.... --And.