From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:57:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:57:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 39803 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:49:30 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907004928.NYZH710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:28 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ce'u Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:48:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <01a501c13350$eadc7040$74b6003e@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam: > la .and. cusku di'e > > > 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? A fatci is something that is true of the local universe. A ka'e fatci then is something that could be true of the local universe and a ca'a fatci is something that actually is true of the local universe. "X dies before X is born" is not a ka'e fatci. "I live in Paris" is a ka'e but not a ca'a fatci. "I live in London" is a ka'e and a ca'a fatci. > > > 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. This is indeed a matter on the philosophical end of semantics rather than the grammatical end. However, if the semantics of "nu" has even the most microscopic resemblance to what "event" means, then a nu is something that consists of a portion of spacetime. "2+2=4" does not consist of a portion of spacetime. --And.