From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Wed Nov 3 04:26:37 1999 X-Digest-Num: 274 Message-ID: <44114.274.1538.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 14:26:37 +0200 From: Robin Turner > Lojbab? John? Comments? What's the "correct" definition of "pendo" - > > is, acts, or both? > > Both. Lojban takes the "walks like a duck & quacks like a duck -> is a duck" > viewpoint as much as possible. Otherwise we end up talking about someone > who is behaviorally indistinguishable from a friend (does all the right > things, all the time) but isn't one in some metaphysical (bad meaning) > sense. > > Generally we only say that someone "acts like a friend" if at some > later date he/she ceases to do so: "He acted like a friend, but he > wasn't really one [because he betrayed me, etc.]". Lojban handles > this sort of thing with its tense contours. > > > Hmm, this should be another thread, but what is the metaphysics of > > lojban? Relativist (acts like)? Absolutist (is)? "Agnostic" (both)? > > Lojban mostly takes the relativist (existential) viewpoint. But the > absolutist (essential) viewpoint can be induced with "ka", which > reifies properties: "ko'a ckaji le ka pendo" means "he has the > property of being a friend". But why make this explicit in the entry for {pendo} and not for {pulji}? More to the point, why then isn't {prami} defined as x1 _acts as though_ they love/feel strong affectionate devotion towards x2 ? co'o mi'e robin.