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

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:02:50 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Nick Nicholas wrote:

> For clarification, and because I tend to get caught in my own vocab: By
> Free {ka}, I mean a {ka} clause which may well contain {ce'u}, but where
> that {ce'u} is not necessarily filled in by any sumti in the bridi, or

I am not sure this distinction is useful enough.

> And I at least now think this is a quality, not a property

I might open a new can by demanding an example of the difference between
"quality" and "property". Or I could be Lojbanic and observe that clearly
whatever difference there may be in English, in Lojban at least as far as
ka is concerned, there isn't any.

-----
"It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution
never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object
of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every
shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously
occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950