From sentto-44114-15175-1029854665-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Tue Aug 20 07:45:01 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.86]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17hAFe-0002iQ-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:44:58 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15175-1029854665-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Aug 2002 14:44:27 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 20 Aug 2002 14:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 74959 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2002 14:44:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2002 14:44:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.235) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2002 14:44:26 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:44:26 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:44:26 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Aug 2002 14:44:26.0799 (UTC) FILETIME=[1517ABF0:01C24858] 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, 20 Aug 2002 14:44:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Content-Type: text/plain X-archive-position: 705 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 ><< >So would it be {mi nelci lo'ezu'o citka loi cakla}, then? > >> >No, it almost certainly shouldn't be {lo'e zu'o}, though perhaps it is {lo >zu'o} rather than {le}. [...] >If you say {le} at this point, the fair >question is "which ones are those?" since you have some particular ones in >mind. So, it is safer to say {lo}, some but unspecified. If he likes that he is eating chocolate once in his life, he could say {mi nelci lo zu'o mi citka loi cakla}. Surely he wants to claim more than that? >For right now, the crucial thing about intensional contexts (inside the >scope >of abstractions and a few other places) is that you can't quantify out of >them. But the problem here is that events, like objects (but unlike facts probably), should be treated extensionally with le/lo. So while you have taken care of the quantification over chocolates, you are still left with a quantification over events of eating chocolate. We want to refer to such events intensionally, generically, we don't want a quantifier that runs over all such events. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/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/