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

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:17:18 -0700 (PDT)

cu'u la xod.

[Free ka]
>I am not sure this distinction is useful enough.

*shrug* Lojbab invokes it, and wants his 'abstract' {ka} to be the
default in those contexts (whether he realises it or not. :-) The debate
is on the very issue of whether this distinct is in fact useful or not.

>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.

I think I've been pretty explict on these (and I've been explicit
precisely because I know you like to raise this objection):

.i lo se ckaji be su'o pa su'e re steci cu me zoi gy. property gy.
.i lo se ckaji be zi'o .a piro loi selbri sumti cu me zoi gy. quality gy.

{le ka ce'u xendo zo'e zo'e} is a property.
{le ka ce'u xendo ce'u ce'u}, which some would call {le si'o xendo},
and others {la'ezo xendo}, (and which Lojbab was originally thinking of
as {le ka zo'e xendo zo'e zo'e}) is a quality.

Properties are properties of something; qualities are in and of
themselves.

That's how I understand 'em.

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
[email-masked] -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias