> Is it an unambiguous replacement for "marji/dacti" but for physical
> studies by physics?
I would say that the set of referents of zo fisli is a strict superset
of the set of all those things which are dacti, which in turn is a strict
superset of the set of all those things which are marji. So, basically,
yes, although they might have slightly different implications.
In particular, energy (especially the total energy of the physical
universe) is arguably enduring throughout spacetime and therefore dacti
(although it is not material so the case would still be a hard one!) but
arguing for it being marji would he harder. It is definitely fisli though.
marji is bad for physical objects that are taken to be ideal (lacking
structure, etc.). Ideal springs or elementary particles are not really
marji even though I have in the last used the word in order to describe
them. Sometimes, though, they are not even dacti: there is no such thing
as an ideal spring and virtual particles are somewhat questionable in the
"enduring" department. But both are "physical" in some abstract sense
Note: munje is a universe (which can be a collection of lo fisli of some
type governed by some rules); it can be taken to be physical, but need not
be so conceptually. In particular, an imaginary universe can follow other
metaphysics or not be physical at all (such as a spiritual world maybe).
What constitutes "physical" is pretty much up to speaker opinion, intent,
standard, and metaphysics. The rules of a universe are in some sense
physical (they affect physical things) but are also less so (they are on
some level conceptual or not actual, despite being real- I do not know how
to express this idea). The same goes for math.
Angular momenta vectors are interestingly in-between too. They definitely
matter in the physical world, but the actual right-hand rule result of the
cross-product is not really "there" (even as far as vectors go). It is
just a convenient way to encode information (even more removed from the
abstraction that other vectors such as linear momentum represent).
I would stick with the rule of Lojban being semantically vague in this
> can an object be said to be actually "lo fisli"?
Hmmmmm... Interesting. My immediate thinking was "yes" (see previous
comment), but I suppose that that could be taken to be some sort of sumti
raising. It could just be an issue for philosophy. I would not specify
right now one way or the other by linguistic fiat in the definition. On my
part at least, much more thinking is necessary.