From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 24 12:15:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 19:15:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 92515 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 19:14:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 19:14:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 19:14:20 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.6c.f12c0c4 (3980) for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6c.f12c0c4.28b80185@aol.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:14:13 EDT Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6c.f12c0c4.28b80185_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10053 --part1_6c.f12c0c4.28b80185_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/24/2001 11:20:08 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > OTOH, there is no alternative way of expressing current {me}, which > creates a property -- intensionalizes -- its sumti, and ascribes the > property to x1. > > la'o la'o Sean Connery la'o pa moi me la'o la'o James Bond la'o > > so'i da me la'o la'o dalai lama la'o > Well, I have to admit that those cases, with name/titles rather than decriptors are pretty convincing. Except, of course, that they fall under the original {me}, without any significant extension -- and even save a {la'o} . I am unsure what intensionalizing a name means or making it into a property, different from being identical with the bearer of the name. Still, how do I say "mine"? --part1_6c.f12c0c4.28b80185_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/24/2001 11:20:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

OTOH, there is no alternative way of expressing current {me}, which
creates a property -- intensionalizes -- its sumti, and ascribes the
property to x1.

la'o la'o Sean Connery la'o pa moi me la'o la'o James Bond la'o

so'i da me la'o la'o dalai lama la'o

Well, I have to admit that those cases, with name/titles rather than
decriptors are pretty convincing. Except, of course, that they fall under
the original {me}, without any significant extension -- and even save a
{la'o} .
I am unsure what intensionalizing a name means or making it into a property,
different from being identical with the bearer of the name.

Still, how do I say "mine"? --part1_6c.f12c0c4.28b80185_boundary--