Re: replies mainly re "ka"

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

> Goran:
> > > Does a set have temporal dimensions? I think it does. Maybe it's a
> > > personal quirk of mine to be able to think of most things as events.
> > As far as I understand system theory (which may not be perfect):
> > Set is an abstract structure, and has no dimensions at all.
>
> What is the ontological status of a set? What does "this set exists"
> mean? I can only answer these questions by thinking of sets as literal
> or metaphorical collections. Perhaps you can do better.

Question of what sets are is very obfuscated and I won't pretend
knowledge of that. But what it primarily is is an idea, one of the
abstractions by which we try to order the world around us into
intelligible terms. 'Set' is not the same as a 'bag'. I just don't
know what else to say. After all, I mostly agree with you. But
viewing a set as an event is viewing a very long event indeed. :)

> > > It won't do for "In general,
> > > I am grey". And it was that - the inadequacy of lohe in some
> > > circumstances - that set me off on this subthread.
> > What does that mean, anyway? For "In an interval, I am grey most
> > of the time" {na'o} works OK, as far as I can see.
>
> That's pretty much what I meant. But I don't necessarily mean it in
> a strictly temporal sense. For example, "in general, the books in this
> library never get read" can be true if most of them are never read.
> "In general" is a kind of modalizer, stating a generalization that
> has exceptions.

In this case, why not use {so'a}? {so'a le cukta pe le ti ckuzda noroi
se tcidu}? I don't think that we need to have a lojbo expression for
every expression of English? Use what is appropriate.

> > > True enough. But in "an englishman's taste for whisky is acquired" we
> > > don't mean the generic Englishman either (though maybe we do mean
> > > the generic englishman-with-a-taste-for-whisky, or the generic
> > > englishman's-taste-for-whisky).
> > >
> > > So, how to say "in general it is the case that..."?
> > I haven't been following the thread real closely, but what's wrong with
> > lo ka lo glipre cu vusnei la uiskis. cu toljinzi
> > Property of (an Englishman having taste for whiskey) is non-inherent.
>
> I don't understand this ka clause. Whose property is it?

Ah, yes, I see the problem. I believe Englishman's. But I would also
say that I see all properties as exhibited by x1 of their bridi:

le ka ko'a crino = his greenness
mi nelci le ka na gunka = I like (ellipsized my) not working
etc.

> > You can, if I understand correctly, say {lo'e glipre} in both sentences,
> > if you want to generalize instead of making the claim of *every* glipre
> > that likes whiskey.
>
> No, because there is no claim that the typical-generic englishman likes
> whisky, though I concede that the claim is made that the typical-generic
> englishman that likes whisky acquires the liking.

Oh, you wanted THAT claim? :) Even simpler: {lo'e glipre cu pu'o vusnei
la .uiskis.} should state that... Typical Englishman is (at least at one
time) before beginning to like whiskey.

> ---
> And
>

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi