WikiDiscuss

As I said, there are interrelations that need to be worked out. My main sources close to hand (after Raghunatha and his ilk, which doesn't help much here) tends to wander off into modalities and stay there — or into semantics. I'm chasing down some more remote work.
A> I just gave you {lo ka la djon melbi}, which is different from {lo du'u la djon melbi} — and also {lo nu la djon melbi} (an event, not a property)

B> Not necessarily; some properpties — very individual ones like the blue of this house {lo ka levi zdani cu blanu} — have no gaps. More abstract properties are covers for the particular ones, just as propositional functions ({du'u} with {ce'u}) cover propositions — and so on for the whole list (though we don't have good names for many of these things, other than "---al function.")

C> No, that is Joan('s) being beautiful, something else again. You can't (usefully) say Joan's being beautiful is extereme though you can say her beauty is (but someone might claim that is {lo ni la djon melbi}). As i say, they are interrealated and yet distinct, but neither feature is very clear.

D> I would think that both are atemporal; abstracts tend to be even when their manifestations (various words here, I'm not sure which is best for a given abstraction) tend to be temporal. I think the fact that one is a property and the other an event is a crucial difference, but I am not sure in just what that difference consists.
s <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> I am getting more worried about this identifiction of {ka}s and {du'u}s.

A>What's an example where they differ? I mean, where would you use
a {lo ka ...} without any {ce'u}s?

> A
> proposition is not a property,

B>We agree about that. A property has an open slot, whereas a
proposition does not. And a relation has more than one open slot.

> a function to properties (a more abstract
> property) is not a function to a propositions.

Agreed.

> Joan's beauty is not that
> Joan is beautiful (one extends to an event, the other to a truth value).

C>Joan's beauty is {lo nu la djon cu melbi}.
That Joan is beautiful is {lo du'u la djon cu melbi}.

> There are a mess of interrelations which need working out, but simple
> identity doesn't seem to hack it.

D>We have a tendency of using {ka} instead of {nu} when the selbri
corresponds to an adjective (or a noun). But there's no reason
to do that, is there? As far as I can tell, Joan's beauty is like
Joan's running, {lo nu dy melbi} or {lo nu dy bajra}. That one is
more or less atemporal should not matter. Or is there something
about her beauty that is crucially different from her running?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail