From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Sep 21 06:47:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 13:47:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 59834 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 13:47:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 13:47:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 13:47:19 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-121.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.121]) by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D6582052C for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:47:17 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:48:57 +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: > la and cusku di'e > > >Actually, I think I need to backtrack. If the world is > >conceptualized in such a way that {lo'e broda cu brode} is > >true, then under the same conceptualization, {da broda} is > >perforce true. In the same way, if {la tom brode}, then > >necessarily {da me la tom}. > > All right. I'm not sure that the reconceptualization is really > necessary though. It may be just two ways of looking at the > same thing. For the moment I'm more comfortable with the > non-referring expression, but I can't think of any obvious > conflict with the world reconceptualization view. That's how I feel. > I'm not sure > what would happen with your view if you mix {lo'e broda} and > {lo broda} in the same bridi for example, but even then I think > it can be done. e.g. {lo prenu cu patfu lo'e prenu} The logical problem posed by such cases seems similar to {lo re broda cu brode lo ci broda} -- it is perfectly to see one and the same set as being 2-membered or 3-membered, depending on how its members are individuated, and I don't see why the different individuation criteria should apply separately but in the same sentence. But it does lead to what is superficially some sort of contradiction. > >Okay, but for me, {lo'e gerku} has a referent, in 'the corresponding > >world', which is a world in which there is one dog (which IMO does > >not exclude This World -- it includes This World to the extent that > >This World can be conceptualized as containing exactly one dog). > > But in some cases you may need to conceptualize it as containing > one dog for some purpose and many dogs for another purpose at the > same time: > > ci le mi gerku cu terpa lo'e gerku > Three of my dogs are afraid of dogs. > > This is not necessarily a problem, but it complicates the picture > a bit. Right. > >I am inclined to disagree. {zo arktik glico cmene lo'e traji > >berti}, {zo djeimzbond cmene lo'e skino prenrdjeimzbondu} > >("The far north is called 'Arctic'", "James Bond of the JB films > >is called 'James Bond'") -- I don't see why the lo'e phrases > >can't be coreferential with {la arktik}, {la djeimzbond}. > > In my view, they can't be coreferential because names refer and > {lo'e broda} doesn't. In this example you could have just said > {le traji berti} and {le prenrdjeimzbondu} and give a name to > those. Yes, but {le} means "each of certain things that are", so {le traji berti} could be referring just to Greenland, and {le prenrdjeimzbondu} could be referring just to the Sean Connery Bond. --And.