WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> > > Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would
> > > rather
> > > use something like {lo me da e lo no da}.
> Is it
> > > really about zasti at all?
> > >
> > Yes, it seems to be, although it may take
> > advantage of the second place of {zasti},
> "under
> > metaphysics."
>
> Third place, actually. The second one is for
> the observer.
> A charged word if there is one.

Especially since the first place is one of those
troublesome words that are either opaque or
limited to abstractions (or ampliating, but that
amounts to the first in this case).
>
> > "neant" appears to be a present active
> > participle, "non-being," here as a noun,
> > ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state
> or
> > something in that state — both different
> from
> > "nothing," in the sense of the lack of
> something.
> > So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of
> > existential quantification, that is involved.
>
> I'm not fully convinced, but I'll take your
> word
> for it.
>
Thanks; existentialism is not my thing, but this
seems pretty clear. In particular, there are
people who have non-being — due to false
consciousness: refusal to define themselves (in
shorthand, the details are long, boring and
totally muddling if not muddled) — so non-being
seems clearly seprate from quantification.