From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 01 13:35:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 20:35:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 74854 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 20:35:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 20:35:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 20:35:23 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.8d.d365870 (3928) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8d.d365870.28ea2d83@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:35:15 EDT Subject: Re: new brivla (was: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8d.d365870.28ea2d83_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11251 --part1_8d.d365870.28ea2d83_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 1:28:01 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > It's 'caused' by the selbri, but you can't express it without du'u. > IOW, the selbri causes the du'u sumti to be intensional, but nondu'u sumti > of that selbri would not be intensional. > > Maybe somebody could express this clearer. I'm tired. > By {du'u} do you mean {du'u} itself only or all of NU that can be expressed as {du'u} in your versions? There are clearly cases of {nu} at least that are as intensional as an simple {du'u} (which might count for your interpretation). --part1_8d.d365870.28ea2d83_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 1:28:01 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


It's 'caused' by the selbri, but you can't express it without du'u.
IOW, the selbri causes the du'u sumti to be intensional, but nondu'u sumti of that selbri would not be intensional.

Maybe somebody could express this clearer. I'm tired.


By {du'u} do you mean {du'u} itself only or all of NU that can be expressed as {du'u} in your versions?  There are clearly cases of {nu} at least that are as intensional as an simple {du'u} (which might count for your interpretation). --part1_8d.d365870.28ea2d83_boundary--