>>Indeed, I
>>think "object enduring in space time" excludes anything without physical
>>bounds and structure (is a gas, plasma, or liquid an object? lo dacti?).
>
>
>Then you definitely need to be more clear. Is the sun a dacti? Is the earth
>a dacti? Is a mountain a dacti? Is a cloud a dacti? I would have said yes
>to all of those, but now you make me doubt, because I probably wouldn't
>call them "objects" in English in the more restricted sense of things that
>you can handle. Is dacti supposed to be so restricted?
I don't know. I suspect that my default was the English definition. I would
be probne to clrifying it bty trying to identify properties that "things"
have (boundedness in space? and time?) It might have been added as a
contrast to "abstraction" sucta.
I am certainly open to clarifying ideas and wording, since what we have is
obvious so vague as to be meaningless - I had never imagined an abstraction
as being an object.
Or we can leave it as is and let Lojban usage put a meaning on it.
lojbab
----
lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.