From graywyvern@hotmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:23:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: graywyvern@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 16:23:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 58343 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 16:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 16:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.236.129) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 17:24:54 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:23:47 -0800 Received: from 209.176.48.28 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:23:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.176.48.28] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] No imaginary worlds. Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:23:47 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2001 16:23:47.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D17BE40:01C09510] From: "michael helsem" >From: Invent Yourself li'o >We are conflating two concepts: "possible" and "believable". Yes; & some of us believe other worlds are "possible" (English sense) & some of us don't. (This wouldn't be the first time philosophy ran aground on the rocks of the imperial idiom.) But what about in Lojban? Can one say CUMKI MUNJE or is it necessary to use a PE'A somewhere? x1 is POSSIBLE under conditions x2 y1 is a UNIVERSE/COSMOS [complete and ordered entity] of domain/ sphere y2 defined by rules y3. MUNJE clearly excludes worlds without y3 --rules-- & worlds without definable domain boundaries --y2. As far as i can tell, there's nothing unlojbanical about CUMKI MUNJE given that the speaker is expected to have in mind x2, y2 & y3, or else explicitly denies one or all of them with ZI'Os. (--And "z2 is CALLED z1 by z3" seems as unproblematical as any gismu in the lexicon...) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com