From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Jul 26 10:34:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 26 Jul 2002 17:34:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 384 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2002 17:34:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Jul 2002 17:34:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao01.cox.net) (68.1.17.244) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2002 17:34:41 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020726173441.TEJG29627.lakemtao01.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:34:41 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020726132343.00abed90@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:32:34 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] rarna In-Reply-To: <0af301c234bf$11cc6140$879dca3e@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab 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 lojbab@lojban.org 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