Subject: Re: [lojban] rarna

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:32:34 -0400

At 06:07 PM 7/26/02 +0200, G. Dyke wrote:
>rarna rar naturel x1 is [...] not
>[consciously] caused by person(s)
>
>is this entry missing an x2?

No.

> or is this equivalent to "not consciously caused by _anyone_"

I think so. I was trying to avoid use of "not ... anyone" because English 
has dialect variation in understanding of negatives with "some" and "any" 
and "all", and referring to "persons" specifically harkens to the 
definition of prenu.

>Can I take this to be
>-denial of the existence of anything natural

No, Rather, it was attempting to draw a firm line between rarna and rutni.

>-denial of the existence of god
>-mutual exclusion of the naturel and of god
>-denial of god being a person (xu ro cevna na prenu)

Lojban is completely neutral on the nature of God. Whether, if God is 
considered a person, things that he creates are not natural, I will leave 
to theologians, though most commonly acts of God are considered 
"supernatural".

>Don't take the above too seriously but just confirm whether I am correct in
>saying:
>
>{ro cevna na prenu} <=> {naku su'o cevna cu prenu}

I don't think we can say anything about the relationship between cevni and 
prenu.

But I have seen people discuss animals as prenu, so I would be inclined to 
be inclusive rather than exclusive.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org