From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Feb 12 09:34:33 2001
Return-Path: <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 17:34:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 11166 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 17:34:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 17:34:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 18:35:37 -0000
Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:18:13 +0000
Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:34:22 +0000
Message-Id: <sa881e9e.055@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:34:10 +0000
To: cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "a.rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
Cc: lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [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 <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>

#>>> John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> 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.


