Subject: Re: [lojban] signs and seasons and days and years

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:35:21 EST

In a message dated 1/29/2002 4:00:33 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > How about an imperative with {ko} identified as the lights. How did you 
> do 
> > "fiat lux" at the beginning?
> 
> That would sound far too awkward. I like the {ca'e} idea.
> 

>From pier's example earlier it seems rather simpler than the alternatives 
given. And, even though "imperatives are not imperious" I think they clearly 
are more abrupt than {e'o} and the like.

I don't get {ca'e} at all. A definition does not call anything into 
existence and, further, this does not have form of a definition -- of what?

xorxes:
<And can it be said that there was any cuskuing, given
that there was nobody else around yet? Or was He
talking to Himself?>

{bacru} is more logical, one might think, but all of Creation I is written as 
though (as was historically the case with the earlier versions) God is 
discussing it all with the heavenly host or whatever

xod:
<C cusku lu ca'e da gusni li'u .iseni'ibo co'a gusni

You've got the existence in the da, and the ni'i because we're supposed to
be dealing with something that's as fundamental as logic.>

Maybe as fundamental as logic but NOT logic, the connection is presumably 
causal, not inferential. {ri'a} seems a more natural root.
{da} refers to something that already exists, so can't literally be used for 
calling something into existence (this has been a problem as long as Abramics 
have tried logic on their religions). {ko} is safer because less specific.