From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 08 09:01:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8934 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2000 16:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Sep 2000 16:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.150) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2000 16:01:04 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:57:50 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:57:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] How many? Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:57:50 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2000 16:57:50.0529 (UTC) FILETIME=[97283310:01C01823] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pijem cusku di'e >We still need a way of talking about non-real things. But we can talk about them. I just don't want to claim without qualification that non-real fish are fish. >To resolve the >above discussion [Note: the discussion did not actually take place, so is >it really a discussion? It would be nice to say that a "supposed >discussion" and a "hypothetical discussion" are each types of discussion, >meaning subsets of the set of all discussions. However, it is only >desirable rather than absolutely necessary.], Is it desirable? Is the set of all discussions then the same as the universal set, since we could imagine anything to be a discussion, and therefore everything is some type of discussion? I don't think that's desirable at all. >we could either say that >what was imagined is not Fred, or if it is Fred then we could say that >imagination is part of the tense information (e.g. "do finpe bu'u da .ije >da naku zasti"). So you would agree that everything is a member of the set of fish? >I think it good to keep physical reality as a >separate property. It is a separate property, but it is part of what constitutes being a fish. Things that lack that property can only be fish in a very marginal sense. You need a strong contrary context to override it. >Saying `xy. finpe je zasti' or `xy. ge finpe ginai >zasti' seems to me the clearest way of saying whether or not X is a >physical world fish. But as pc said, how can you tell whether you're talking about real world zasti or things that you imagine as zasti. Are they not types of zasti as well? Why would non-real finpe be more acceptable than non-real zasti? co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.