From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 07:48:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 30 Jan 2002 15:48:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 75040 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2002 15:48:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2002 15:48:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n1.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.51) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2002 15:48:00 -0000 Received: from [216.115.96.177] by n1.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jan 2002 15:48:00 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:47:57 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: signs and seasons and days and years Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 878 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.69.6.31 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > 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? The Book says that {ca'e} is also used for performatives. It does make some sense: And God said "I hereby declare there to be light", and there was light. > {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. I'm not sure I see how {ko} would be safer, especially if God is talking to the heavenly host. I prefer not to put anything to set x1 appart in any case. The heavenly host might respond {ki'a i mi gusni ma ma} and then God would have had to start creation with something else. mu'o mi'e xorxes