Message-ID: <C9A98F2128EDD411B0920008C7B337A13DCE87@hamsem01.de.gedas.vwg>
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:34:13 +0200
Return-Receipt-To: "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
Content-Length: 1648
Lines: 42

la pycyn. cu cusku di'e

> Briefly, an expression like {le/lo broda} refers one or more
> things which are broda and exist in the world [...]
>
> That was thoroughly unhelpful, I suspect.

No -- it sounded more comprehensible to me than the brief version you wrote
earlier. ki'esai .pycyn.

So when you wrote earlier that xorxes likes to use {lo'e} to make things
intensional, this is because a "typical it" need not be an it which actually
exists but is more a conceptual thing? In which case it would, by itself
(without the need for a further abstractor) inhabit a "separate world".

And when you wrote earlier

> {mi nelci lo nu mi citka lo/loi cakla} does NOT entail {da poi
> cakla zo'u mi nelci lo nu citka da}

you meant that I can talk about liking to eat chocolate without having to
have in mind any particular chocolate -- or without there even having to
exist any chocolate at all?

I think I still haven't got my head wrapped around the whole concept (and am
not sure why it was important whether {lo nu mi citka lo cakla} is
intensional or extensional). But I think that the exchange we had means that
{mi nelci lo zu'o mi citka lo cakla} is acceptable, without there having to
be any chocolate in particular, and without my having to like every instance
of eating every chocolate?

mi ckire rodo leka do depcni    (??)

mu'omi'e filip.
[email copies appreciated, since I read the digest]
{ko fukpi mrilu .i'o fi mi ki'u le du'u mi te mrilu loi notseljmaji}
-- 
filip.niutyn. <Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.