Re: multiple ce`u (was: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei,

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>I disapprove of movies which have these properties (restrictive)
>I approve of the movie, which incidentally has these properties (non-
>   restrictive).
>These seem conrtradictory, since any movie  which fits the former sentence
>also fits the latter sentence, if read solely as
restrictive/non-restrictive.

Yes, they certainly do.

>Thus one has to presume that there is something about the relationship
>between the moive and its identifying factor in the former sentence that
>changes the meaning so that it is not merely the movie that I disapprove
of.

Or one might presume that one is not saying what one really means.

>One possibility would be that I disapprove of the fact that the movie is
>characterized by these properties.

Right. Let's say {ko'a}="the movie", {ko'e}= "the property of having
obscene scenes". Then you're saying:

                        mi tolzanru le nu ko'a ckaji ko'e
                        I disapprove of the movie having obscene scenes.

>But why do I so disapprove?  Because I
>disapprove of the properties, and not the movie.

How do you jump to that conclusion?  You're saying that
since {mi tolzanru le nu ko'a ckaji ko'e} is the case, then
it must also be the case that {mi tolzanru ko'e} because
{mi tolzanru ko'a} is not the case. I don't understand your
reasoning.

>Yet I do not disapprove of t
>the properties in an absolute sense independent of the movie.

Exactly. It wouldn't make much sense to disapprove of them.

> That which
>makes a movie vulgar/obscene is perfectly appropriate in some bedrooms.
>So I must disapprove of the property of obscene-movies as a self-standing
>concept.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

co'o mi'e xorxes