Bunches
On 11/29/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 2. Neither kinds nor stages of individuals seems
> to me to be like the real line in the relevant
> ways.
It depends on what you take to be *the* relevant ways, I suppose.
In the only way I claimed them to be alike is in their satisfying
all of the listed thesis except for the one about breaking down
completely into individuals.
...
> As for stages, that will only
> work if time is really continuous, but it seems
> that it is discrete (or is that discreet?) though
> — calculus being what it is — taking it as
> continuous is usally a nice shortcut.
Yes. Whether or not time is really continuous is not
important from the language point of view. All that
matters is that it can be taken as continuous. Lojban
certainly supports this view, implicit for example in the
word {ru'i}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes