From sentto-44114-15067-1029269048-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Tue Aug 13 13:04:43 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.84]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ehuC-0007Rj-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:04:40 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15067-1029269048-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2002 20:04:08 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 13 Aug 2002 20:04:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 37591 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 20:04:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2002 20:04:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.247) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 20:04:07 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:04:07 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:04:06 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2002 20:04:07.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[94877270:01C24304] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:04:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 597 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la pycyn cusku di'e >I >think that all places ought to be extensional, but that we screw up >occasionally. Whereas I think we cannot screw up in that respect even if we try, so there is no "ought", because intensionality/extensionality is not in the places themselves. We don't need for example an intensionality police to make sure that all places in all new lujvo and fu'ivla that are introduced into the language comply with {lo broda cu brode} = {da poi broda zo'u da brode}. This relationship holds automatically for all broda, no matter how devious you try to make the definition. >But you can't have it both ways, {le du'u ce'u broda} is a quantified >descriptor but is intensional. And it is, of course a reference to mebers >of >lo'i du'u ce'u broda. The propositions are referenced extensionally. {lo du'u broda cu brode} is equivalent to {da poi ke'a du'u broda zo'u da brode}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/