Re: lohe, lehe & ka

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> > > Who says you have to write in the entry for Book everything that can be
> > > claimed about {lo'e cukta}?  Does the entry for London tell about what
> > > happened in one of its buildings on May 27th just after lunch?
> >
> > Well if that is a fact about London, it would go in the ideal encyclopedia.
>
> I'd hate to have to search for any useful information in that ideal
> encyclopedia. It sounds like Borges' library of Babel.

It's hypertext, with megaintelligent search alogrithms.

> > I find this stuff very mindboggling, but I recall from long ago
> > John Cowan explaining this. I think (tentatively) that piro loi
> > dodo *is* called Fritz.
>
> Then what's the difference between {piro loi cipnrdodo} and {pimu
> loi cipnrdodo}?

Well, if "loi cipnrdodo" is "Mr Dodo" (i.e. the category construed as
having only one member, or as with all members being the same)
then I guess piro loi C. is the whole of Mr Dodo and pimu loi
c. is half of Mr D. You see half a dodo and say to me "ko viska
pimu loi cipnrdodo".

> > > I disagree that all properties of the members
> > > are properties of the mass, if that is what you are saying.
> >
> > Well I am saying this, but in my defence I do think it Came From On
> > High.
>
> I know, but you don't believe everything that comes from Up There,
> do you?

I do when it's signed "John Cowan".

-----
And