From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 07 09:07:38 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 16:07:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 36171 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 15:58:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 15:58:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 15:58:12 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.175]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907155810.LCBR29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:58:10 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:57:26 +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: <115.453ffe2.28c9e031@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc > a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > > I think that no concept of date rape is a concept of rape -- they > > are distinct concepts. Rather, every *event* of date rape is an > > event of rape: ro nu -daterape kei nu -rape. > > Certainly life will be simpler if we agree with you (because what > you say is sane, I mean). > > But odd: is the connection between the two event cartegories necessary? > could there be a date-rape that is not a rape? If not, then there has to be > a conceptual connection as well: they may be distinct concepts and yet one be > a sub concept of the other. Presumably one should use a predicate for "x1 is a subconcept of x2". I was speculating whether x1 of ka is for subconcepts, but doubtless that would lead to confusion. --And.