Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:54:11 +0000

>>> John Cowan <[email-masked]> 10/30/01 04:17pm >>>
#And Rosta wrote:
#> Well, Jorge has shown why that's false. We need to change it in order for it 
#> to make the point you want:
#> 
#> lo djacu pa mei cu du lo djacu re mei
#> 
#> and this I would say is TRUE. Whereas,
#> 
#> lo remna pa mei cu du lo remna re mei
#> 
#> is false.
#
#What about joined ("Siamese") twins? Sometimes the question "One human
#or two?" just may not make that much sense. Ritta-Christina, notably,
#had two heads and torsos, four arms, a single pelvis, two legs, and
#{veju'o} the Catholic Church, two souls. She/they died at age 5,
#probably from exhaustion due to excessive exposure to crowds.
#
#Under a related epistemology, we are told that husband and wife
#"make one flesh".

For any defined category we can find problematic cases around the
margins. So yes, "one human or two" can sometimes be a tricky
question, but "one djacu or two" is a meaningless one. 

On a slightly different point, I am willing to grant you that

la ritakristin cu remna

could be true even if 

la ritakristina cu remna pa mei

is not. However, if I do grant you that, then I am not willing to grant
that

re da remna

means "there are exactly two people", given that "remna" would not
mean "is one person".

---And.