Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed
wrote:
>
> pc:
> > 6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either,
>
> Here you seem to talk about a nothing that is
> something,
> and claiming that {zi'o} does not refer to it.
> What
> you should say is that {zi'o} does indeed refer
> to
> nothing, i.e. it does not refer to anything.
I am trying to talk to people who think "nothing"
is the name of something and here am telling them
(for the fourth time, I think) that this is not a
case of that sort.
> > (the answer
> > to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i},
> the
> > presupposition of the question — that {zi'o}
> > refers — is false).
>
> I think {zo zi'o sinxa no da} is perfectly fine
> and
> requires no {na'i}: "There is no x such that
> {zi'o}
> refers to x".
OK, if you want to, but that still seems to allow
that {zi'o} is the sort of thing that refers but
just doesn't happen to: are you happy with {zo i
sinxa no da}?
> > (Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly
> but
> > literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na
> zaste}.)
>
> Literally from the French? I can't say I know
> how
> exactly "néant" works in French, but the usual
> Spanish translation is "El ser y la nada",
> where
> "nada" means "nothing" (and is used, just as in
> English, in both senses, logical and reified).
> The English translation is usually "Being and
> Nothingness", but sometimes "Being and Nothing"
>
> too.
>
> Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would
> rather
> use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it
> really about zasti at all?
>
Yes, it seems to be, although it may take
advantage of the second place of {zasti}, "under
metaphysics." The subtitle is "An Essay in
Phenomenological Ontology." One standard summary
says "Being is never exhausted by any of its
phenomenal aspects, no particular perspective
reveals the entire character of being." and then
goes into details, in particular,
"being-for-itself is derived from being-in-itself
by an act of nihilation, for being-for-itself is
a nothingness at the heart of being."
"neant" appears to be a present active
participle, "non-being," here as a noun,
ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state or
something in that state — both different from
"nothing," in the sense of the lack of something.
So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of
existential quantification, that is involved.