From sentto-44114-15004-1028994887-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 08:55:20 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.93]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17dYaE-0004Y8-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:55:18 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15004-1028994887-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Aug 2002 15:54:47 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 10 Aug 2002 15:54:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 58443 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2002 15:54:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2002 15:54:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2002 15:54:46 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.7a.2b2ae5a9 (2612) for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:54:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7a.2b2ae5a9.2a86913e@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:54:38 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7a.2b2ae5a9.2a86913e_boundary" X-archive-position: 534 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_7a.2b2ae5a9.2a86913e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/9/2002 11:53:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > It doesn't work in general, because of the quantifier on {le}. > It only works if you assume {le pa birka janco}, otherwise the > two predicates behave quite differently with some arguments. >> Lost me again. The problem with {le birka janco} is that I might be using {birka janco} as a polite word for {tatru}, then it would not work at all. Otherwise, what happens? If anything, {lo} works much better here, since predicates are general (the specific works with {birka janco} since each person has only a specific number of them -- usually two). {ko'a dasni lo boxfo vi lo cmana} goes over smoothly to {ko'a cmana dasni lo boxfo} : "wears a blanket as x3 on a mountain" (and, indeed, "mountain wear" is probably a style term -- though that is probably {taxfu}) What does the quantifier have to do with things? We can, if you want, fold that into predicate without remainder, as I have done every time, albeit implicitly. That quantifier cannot be fronted, of course, but neither can the quantifier on {lo smani}, which does not occur anywhere in the text. That I cannot then get the fronted version of {vi lo cmana} should, from your point of view, be an advantage -- in case I wouldn't know how to find the mountain involved. << The intensional reading is not possible with lojban {lo}. The quantifier on {lo} goes directly to the prenex. >> Connection? If the place is intentional, then the quantifier can't be fronted -- that is part of the meaning of "intentional context." Your problem with fronting it is why I suggested that you must have an intensional context in mind. << >What does {lo'e}, in either sense, have to do with intentional >contexts? {lo'e broda} for every broda that is proper (as {kosta} surely >is) >is in this world and so quantifiable to a {da}. I'm not sure I understand what you say here. {lo'e broda cu brode} in general does not entail {lo broda cu brode}. >> Well, I am not sure just what your {lo'e broda} stands for, so I can't say whether what you say is true or not. It is probably false for "the typical" but true for "the average." In any case, that wasn't what I said, which was that {lo'e broda cu brode} entails {da brode} -- incontrast to where we seem to be about {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo kosta}, which (being an intentional context) does not entail {ko'a dasni lo boxfo da}. << >But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because >no coat is involved in the relationship. > >> >You do keep saying that, but I still don't see what the evidence is for the >claim (other than that you don't know how to find one of those involved -- >which was not claimed). My only evidence is my understanding of the sentence. The way I understand it, it involves no coat, it only involves coatness. If you understand it as "there is at least one coat such that..." then we simply understand it differently, and of course we will then translate it differently. >> Ahah! You mean "coatness" by {lo'e kosta} (do you?). Now, that also makes sense -- and avoids the intentional place (though {le du'u ce'u kosta} refer to an intentional object). And proerties are a good way to categorizes types of things, though the English reads rather strangely, perhaps even misleadingly. --part1_7a.2b2ae5a9.2a86913e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/9/2002 11:53:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
It doesn't work in general, because of the quantifier on {le}.
It only works if you assume {le pa birka janco}, otherwise the
two predicates behave quite differently with some arguments.

>>
Lost me again.  The problem with {le birka janco} is that I might be using {birka janco} as a polite word for {tatru}, then it would not work at all.  Otherwise, what happens? If anything, {lo} works much better here, since predicates are general (the specific works with {birka janco} since each person has only a specific number of them -- usually two).  {ko'a dasni lo boxfo vi lo cmana} goes over smoothly to {ko'a cmana dasni lo boxfo} : "wears a blanket as x3 on a mountain"  (and, indeed, "mountain wear" is probably a style term -- though that is probably {taxfu})
What does the quantifier have to do with things?  We can, if you want, fold that into predicate without remainder, as I have done every time, albeit implicitly.  That quantifier cannot be fronted, of course, but neither can the quantifier on {lo smani}, which does not occur anywhere in the text.  That I cannot then get the fronted version of {vi lo cmana} should, from your point of view, be an advantage -- in case I wouldn't know how to find the mountain involved.

<<
The intensional reading is not possible with lojban {lo}. The
quantifier on {lo} goes directly to the prenex.
>>

Connection?  If the place is intentional, then the quantifier can't be fronted -- that is part of the meaning of "intentional context."  Your problem with fronting it is why I suggested that you must have an intensional context in mind. 

<<
>What does {lo'e}, in either sense, have to do with intentional
>contexts?  {lo'e broda} for every broda that is proper (as {kosta} surely
>is)
>is in this world and so quantifiable to a {da}.


I'm not sure I understand what you say here. {lo'e broda cu brode}
in general does not entail {lo broda cu brode}.
>>

Well, I am not sure just what your {lo'e broda} stands for, so I can't say whether what you say is true or not.  It is probably false for "the typical" but true for "the average."  In any case, that wasn't what I said, which was that {lo'e broda cu brode} entails {da brode} -- incontrast to where we seem to be about {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo kosta}, which (being an intentional context) does not entail {ko'a dasni lo boxfo da}.

<<
>But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because
>no coat is involved in the relationship.
> >>
>You do keep saying that, but I still don't see what the evidence is for the
>claim (other than that you don't know how to find one of those involved --
>which was not claimed).

My only evidence is my understanding of the sentence. The way
I understand it, it involves no coat, it only involves coatness.
If you understand it as "there is at least one coat such that..."
then we simply understand it differently, and of course we will
then translate it differently.
>>
Ahah!  You mean "coatness" by {lo'e kosta} (do you?).  Now, that also makes sense -- and avoids the intentional place (though {le du'u ce'u kosta} refer to an intentional object).  And proerties are a good way to categorizes types of things, though the English reads rather strangely, perhaps even misleadingly.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here to visit our exclusive feature of ACUVUE2 Colours at LensExpress.com!
Click here to find your contact lenses!

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_7a.2b2ae5a9.2a86913e_boundary--