Subject: Re: signs and seasons and days and years

From: "jjllambias2000" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:47:57 -0000

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