[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes: > la lojbab cusku di'e > > > In that sense, there can be said to be a > > >class of brodas such that when you divide pa broda you end > > >up with so'i broda, and other brodas for which you don't > > > >John (and I) are arguing, I think, that this subdivision of brodas is a SW > >restriction that is not necessary > > Is the divison of brodas into "animals" and "non-animals" also > a SW restriction? It is the same type of subdivision, purely > dependent on the meanings of the predicates and no doubt with > boundary non-clearcut cases The difference here, though, is that the non-animals can't be seen as animals by adding a criterion of animalhood and the animals can be seen as non-animals by erasing a criterion of animalhood. > > >But that's like saying that there is a class of brodas > > >such that when you melt lo broda you still have broda and > > >other brodas for which you don't > > > >If such classes of broda exist, then membership of a particular broda in a > >class is something that can/must be asserted, and not necessarily > >assumed. Lojban supports Salvador Dali, and his flowing watches > > We agree then. We don't want a special gadri for flowing broda, > and we don't need a special gadri for substance broda. If we want > to talk about flowing watches or watch substance we use selbri, > not gadri How, then, do we talk about things that are "broda with the addition of intrinsic boundaries" and "broda with the subtraction of intrinsic boundaries"? --And.