From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 01 17:44:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 46644 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.116]) by out.newmail.net ; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 03:45:08 +0200 Message-ID: <01a501c13350$eadc7040$74b6003e@oemcomputer> To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 02:54:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" la .and. cusku di'e > 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. They become conventionalized, but can be overridden with an explicit CA'A. > > 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. Incidentally, I think that this was the original meaning of "si'o": to describe things in one's noosphere. If I say 'ta ka'e jelca', that means that 'mi se si'o ta ka'e jelca' and if I say 'lo'e xarju ka'e vofli', that means that 'mi se si'o lo'e xarju ka'e vofli'. > > 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. What distinction? > > 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. I think that this is starting to be a philosophical debate without any really important implications for the grammar, but anyway: In theory, anything that can be consistently described can be a 'ka'e nu', so I don't see why 'li resu'ire du li vo' is an exception. mu'o mi'e .adam.