errr, lo'ai kukte sa'ai jukpa le'ai I'm always mixing those up for some reason.
> "a man" itself is an abstraction/event of e.g. atoms forming molecules > forming cells forming a biological male body; an event of "man-ing". > So, when you see "a man", you are already seeing an event. When "a > man" "runs", it's a combination of events, just like the event of > hydrogen & rubber forming a balloon and the event of the balloon going > up can combine. I see what you're saying. I think my understanding of "event" was just too narrow. Thanks for clearing that up. On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:28 PM, tijlan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 March 2010 16:26, Luke Bergen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So you object to: > >> > >> mi viska lo nu lo nanmu cu bajra > >> > >> ? > > Good point. I suppose I can't really object to that for practical > reasons. > > It just feels strange to me. I understand myself to be seeing a man who > is > > running as opposed to the event of running itself. > > "a man" itself is an abstraction/event of e.g. atoms forming molecules > forming cells forming a biological male body; an event of "man-ing". > So, when you see "a man", you are already seeing an event. When "a > man" "runs", it's a combination of events, just like the event of > hydrogen & rubber forming a balloon and the event of the balloon going > up can combine. > > > >
