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

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:34:10 +0000

#>>> John Cowan <[email-masked]> 02/10/01 06:03pm >>>
#And Rosta scripsit:
#
#> Each sense has a definition -- "goes miaow" is part of the definition
#> of 'cat'; "is married to Nora" is part of the definition of 'Lojbabhood'.
#
#I can't swallow this. Surely a cat without a voice is still a cat, and
#if Lojbab had never married Nora he would still be Lojbab. These can't
#be *defining* properties.

.oi. This was a message in reply to Lojbab in which I was trying to
explain what I/we/the debate is/are on about. As opposed to
actual debate with you & pc.

I agree those aren't defining properties. I chose 'cat' because
there's a consensus that it is a category/predicate but at the
same time is hard to define (unlike, say, 'square'). 'Lojbab' is
similarly hard to define. I just suggested the feature "married to
Nora" in order to avoid the misunderstanding that the definition
is "person/thing named _Lojbab_".

#As you know, I hold that "cat" is not a category at all, but an individual.

No I don't know; please explain. I'll wait for your fuller explanation
before I respond.

--And.