From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Feb 06 10:15:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 18:15:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 64357 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 18:15:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 18:15:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 18:15:20 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:58:57 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:14:47 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:14:26 +0000 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: [lojban] RE:su'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #As an at least occasional Nyayaika and Montagovian, I have to say that=20 #abstractions from sumti do make sense, since every individual (or group or= =20 #mass) has an abstract "-ness." This is different from {ka/nu/.... me=20 #[sumti]}, since it holds of the individual even in worlds where the [sumti= ]=20 #does not (indeed, is how you trace the individual across worlds).=20=20 Could you elaborate on and elucidate this (while in your reply lowering=20 your presumptions of the intellectual capabilities of your interlocutor by= =20 about 99%)? I don't grasp the distinction that you're describing. (I suspect that I might deny the metaphysical validity of the distinction, if it requires that individuals cross worlds. -- Which raises the interesti= ng question of how to speak a metaphysically invalid language...) --And.