From sentto-44114-15807-1032360168-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Sep 18 07:45:32 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.88]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rg54-0000h2-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:45:30 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15807-1032360168-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Sep 2002 14:42:48 -0000 X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 66107 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:10:44 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:43:03 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 To: pycyn , lojban From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin 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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:42:34 +0100 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1295 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list pc: #jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: #> Then this is where we part. To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes #> a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification #> of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how #> you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts #> if you don't think so. #Yes, different; but the first implies the second. And, under the present #system at least, the instant case, where {tu'a da} is a cover for {tu'o du'u #ce'u co'e da}, it's going to get the implication the other way as well. Is {tu'a da} a cover for {tu'o du'u da zo'u ce'u co'e da}? That is the crux, and I think we all want the answer to be Yes. BTW, are you actually proposing locutions like {nelci tu'a lo cakla}, {nelci tu'o du'u ce'u co'e lo cakla}? To me, those don't mean the same thing as "I like chocolate". --And. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/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/