Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:18:28 EDT

In a message dated 8/29/2001 5:36:55 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> And I at least now think this is a quality, not a property, and {ka} no
> longer is about properties. (Which I have translated into Lojban terms
> already, 2 paragraphs above: property (one or two ce'u) but as a quality
> (all or no ce'u). ) Further, I have been convinced we would more
> profitably be thinking of as {si'o} (at most, {si'o... kei be zi'o} or
> {du'u ... kei be zi'o} instead.) I am aware that you haven't bought this
> yet; but the precise meaning of {si'o} is to me now a relatively minor
> point. The consensus has been achieved where it matters -- as I said in my
> own Record :-) , earlier this week.

I don't get the distinction yet. I wonder if it is that (which we may come 
to one day) between the function in this world from tuples to truth values 
(the present {ka}) and that of the function from worlds to such functions in 
those worlds (the intension of a predicate, say, roughly). Oddly enough, I 
do see a role for {si'o} in that one, since, while everyone may agree about 
what things ARE broda, they may very well disagree about what {broda} means 
(I've been working on {xunre} for a hideous example and come down for 
spectrum position and color whorl position, but I know a lot would argue for 
angstrom units and others for one or another mixture technique. But, up to 
Ishikawa tests and the like, we agree what things are red.)