From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Tue Feb 06 11:31:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 19:31:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 82086 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 19:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 19:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 19:31:30 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA16313; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:37:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:37:16 -0500 To: John Cowan Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u Message-ID: <20010206143716.R18781@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mail-Followup-To: John Cowan , lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <3A804EB4.7070106@reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A804EB4.7070106@reutershealth.com>; from jcowan@reutershealth.com on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 02:21:24PM -0500 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 02:21:24PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > And Rosta wrote: > > > pc: > > #As an at least occasional Nyayaika and Montagovian, I have to say that > > #abstractions from sumti do make sense, since every individual (or group or > > #mass) has an abstract "-ness." This is different from {ka/nu/.... me > > #[sumti]}, since it holds of the individual even in worlds where the [sumti] > > #does not (indeed, is how you trace the individual across worlds). > > > > Could you elaborate on and elucidate this (while in your reply lowering > > your presumptions of the intellectual capabilities of your interlocutor by > > about 99%)? > > I think the point is that while there's no Judith Shakespeare (a hypothetical > sister of William, also a poet, invented by Virginia Woolf, ...), it is > still reasonable to talk about the Judith-Shakespeare-ness of someone. > > Trying to do this as "lo nu me la djudit. cekspir." doesn't work, > because "la djudit. cekspir." lacks a referent. Whereas that trick does > work when translating Sterne's _Tristram Shandy_ on the > "corregiosity of Corregio". You wouldn't use le nu for that anyways, I don't think. I just realized something: lo su'u me la djudit. cekspir. kei works fine. Now I get to chuckle quietly at you all for forgetting that elidble terminators exist. Although I still might use lo su'u me la djudit. cekspir. dunli in practice. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Information wants to be free. Too bad most of it is crap. --RLP