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.
Cases?
> ...
> > 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}.
Well, {ru'i} doesn't seem to have anything to do
with the cntinuum; it merely means "without
significant interruption" "whenever there is an
occasion" even.