[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TECH: existential quantification
- Subject: Re: TECH: existential quantification
- From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:20:36 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
- In-Reply-To: <199411260050.AA18996@nfs2.digex.net> from "Iain Alexander" at Nov 25, 94 11:40:28 pm
la .i,n. cusku di'e
> I pretty much agree with Jorge on this, but I'd like to repeat a
> suggestion I've made in the past. I like {za'i} in this situation.
>
> mi troci lo za'i mi viska do
>
> This assumes that {za'i <broda>} (the state <broda>) is some
> sort of abstraction from all the events {nu <broda>}.
I think this statement evinces a confusion between "nu" and "mu'e", between
events and point-events. In Lojban, a state is a kind of event. You may
say that a state is made up of a welding-together of many point-events,
provided you quantize time (and we don't have to), but nothing can be done
with states that can't be done with (generalized, {nu}) events.
--
John Cowan sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.