From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Aug 29 17:28:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 30 Aug 2001 00:28:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 84330 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 00:24:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Aug 2001 00:24:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2001 00:24:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7U0ObB11711 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:24:37 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Qualities & Properties (was: Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > > 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. It may be time for him to step up and offer some examples. > > >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. This sounds like a metaphysical distinction that, like all of them, doesn't actually refer to anything in reality, but is an artifact of our concepts. Dogness, a property or a quality? Fiveness? There can't be any instance of a quality existing outside of an observable. ----- "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