Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 19:46:20 +0000

John:
#> pc:
#> #As an at least occasional Nyayaika and Montagovian, I have to say that 
#> #abstractions from sumti do make sense, since every individual (or groupor 
#> #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).  
[...]
#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".

Thanks. I understand (maybe). I agree with pc, then, that there's a 
problem (and I also think that it is the "(me) la X" form (and the notion of 
reference) that is metaphysically faulty).

A cumbersome solution would be something like "ckaji ro ckajrdjuditceikspir",
or even "ckaji la djuditceikspir", where the cmevla denotes a property,
no?

--And.