Return-Path: <@segate.sunet.se:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from segate.sunet.se by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sooEV-0000ZKC; Sat, 2 Sep 95 11:47 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by segate.sunet.se (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id F2E3579B ; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 10:47:23 +0200 Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 01:25:11 -0700 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: Re: Names X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 944 Lines: 38 Veion quotes xorxes: >> but I would prefer to use something other than {me'e}. I don't want >> the predicate to mean "x1 is called 'Veijo'", but rather "x1 is Veijo". My thought: fa du la'e la Veijo x1 equals the referent of Veijo, or: da du la'e la Veijo, this gets the existence claim with da, at least one x exists, and it equals the referent of [the name, from la] Veijo, or ti dacti du la'e la Veijo, this object is the referent of the name Veijo. mi du la'e la djer: I am the referent of the name, djer. Assuming mi means "I", that is. pc mentioned that it only means that by convention, not definition. Sometimes the main Whorfian effect I get from lojban is frustration at not being able to say what I want, as apparently xorxes does in this example. I'm not sure these say what xorxes wants, but there should be a way. djer >> {me'e} brings out the name aspect too much. Other possibilities >> to consider: >> Jorge > >