Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:27:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710170327.WAA01136@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: Jorge's right re: ni To: Lojban List In-Reply-To: <199710151405.IAA00492@indra.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 898 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 16 22:28:10 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, John Cowan wrote: > > By analogy with this example, I claim that whenever you have a simple > > sumti with arguments connected by {be}, the main bridi doesn't claim > > anything about those {be} arguments, except that they help identify > > the one place that's privileged by being connected to the {le} gadri. > > I think this is a property of "le"; remember that "le broda" needn't > be a broda. "lo gerku be la sankt. bernard." is not only > veridically a dog, but veridically a St. Bernard. I think even with {lo} the same thing happens: mi nelci lo gerku be la sankt. bernard I like the really-are dogs which are st. bernards The {la sankt bernard}, with {lo}, veridicially identifies the dogs as saint bernards, but that's all it does; what it says I "like" is only the dogs, not the *fact* that they are saint bernards. For that I'd still need an abstractor.