From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Jan 14 09:36:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 14 Jan 2002 17:36:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 20682 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 17:36:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jan 2002 17:36:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 17:36:23 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:10:55 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:36:09 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:35:39 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] po'u considered harmful Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12922 [me trying to decide whether to take a break from excruciatingly tedious admin and stay late in the office, or whether to knuckle down & get home earlier. Lojban seduces me into the former...] pc: #me ME sumti to selbri convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is speci= fic=20 #to [sumti] in aspect x2 # #This is still running on some official lists. It is usefully vague.=20=20 #Presumably Cowan wants x2 to be jest' (identity/membership/inclusion), And= =20 #wants it to be haeceity, I want it open. I'm not sure whether it's haecceity or quiddity that I want it to be. I do = want it to be the case that two different individuals (e,g, 1980 vintage And, & 1990 vintage And) can have the same 'haecceity' ('And') -- since that=20 conflicts with my understanding of 'haecceity', perhaps I mean quiddity.=20 IIRC you came up with some relevant Sanskrit term (visheka?). As for why I want it to be what I want it to be, partly this is because I t= hink its the most useful and the most needed meaning, and partly because it is because I think certain other meanings don't work. # # #No, it is equivalent to the previous case, since the referents of {lo brod= a}=20 #are just the broda. If X has no referent, then {me X} is simply false for= =20 #every case -- but meaningful. We seem to be using 'referent' in crucially different senses. But taking what you say, if the referent of 'lo gerku' is dogs, then it would seem that "X me lo gerku" would mean either "is each dog" or "is all dogs", whereas I wan;t it to mean "Ey y is dog & X has property of being y". In your reply keep in mind that I may have misunderstood you ( & not wilfully!) --And.