Bunches
> On 11/30/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
>
> Cases of what?
Things we might really use that satisfy all the
theses not tied with foundation.
>
> > Well, {ru'i} doesn't seem to have anything to
> do
> > with the continuum; it merely means "without
> > significant interruption" "whenever there is
> an
> > occasion" even.
>
> So you take time to be *linguistically*
> discrete? Interesting.
Well, I didn't say so; I just made a comment
about {ru'i}, which seems to me to say nothing
about the nature of time. But, so far as I can
tell, Lojban at least (but I think English too)
treats time as discrete in most situations --
other than certain kinds of scientific talk,
perhaps.
temci tem tei time x1 is the
time-duration/interval/period/elapsed time from
time/event x2 to time/event x3
It comes in chunks.