From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Sep 18 18:32:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 01:32:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 26377 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 01:28:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 01:28:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 01:28:49 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-71.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.71]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C6B753D6ED for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 03:28:46 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:30:25 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > >I prefer the definition of {lo'e} as the gadri appropriate to > >singleton categories. When applied to a category ordinarily > >conceptualized as nonsingleton, it forces an appropriate > >reconceptualization. (Technically called "coercion" in cognitive > >linguistics.) > > I don't have a problem with that, as long as those singleton > categories can't instantiate {da}, which is extensional par > excellence. In other words {lo'e broda cu brode} should not > entail {lo broda cu brode}, but also not even {da brode}. I go along with you about {lo'e broda} not entailing {da broda}. If {lo'i broda cu no mei}, then no da broda but we can still legitimately talk about lo'e broda. But we may disagree about the other bit. I see no difference between {lo'e broda cu klama} and {la tom klama}. Both, I think, entail {da klama}, yet both may lack an extension in a given world. If we say "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi", I don't see why that shouldn't entail "da blabi", within the worlds in which {lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi} or {la tom cu blabi} (where la tom is a or the unicorn) is true. --And.