From araizen@newmail.net Mon Oct 01 06:16:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 13:16:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 84615 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 13:16:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 13:16:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw2.netvision.net.il) (194.90.1.9) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 13:16:57 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (ras2-p29.rvt.netvision.net.il [62.0.180.158]) by mailgw2.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA01039 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:16:56 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <085a01c14a7b$815d6920$d8b5003e@oemcomputer> To: "lojban" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:30:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" la .and. cusku di'e > I believe that the mainstream view among lojbanists is that everything > receives the extensional reading, except for LE du'u sumti, which are > intensional. Why would "le du'u " be different from "le broda"? If 'le' always refers to the extension, then doesn't "le du'u " refer to the extension of "du'u "? mu'o mi'e .adam.