BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:34:19 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford
<clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The point is that nothing in {le nu mi'o casnu cu
> nu la lojban bangu} requires that Lojban be used
> in the discussion; indeed there is nothing there
> about uses of Lojban beyond its potential to be
> used, implicit in its being a language.
We seem to have very different undesrstandings about
what counts as a {nu bangu}. For me, an event of language
requires lenguage to be in actual use. And an event of language
with Lojban as the language requires Lojban to be in actual use
in that event.
> And,
> insofar as an event is an s-t block in which the
> defining predication holds, every event now is
> one in which Lojban is a language (for someone --
> not necessarily us — to convey a message — not
> necessary the one being discussed). You meant, I
> think, {lo nu mi'o casnu cu nu mi'o pilno la
> lojban lo bangu} or some such.
No, I did mean {cu nu la lojban bangu}, but obviously
we have very different ideas about what counts as
such an event.
mu'o mi'e xorxes