From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Aug 10 09:46:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 10 Aug 2002 16:46:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 82422 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2002 16:46:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2002 16:46:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.14) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2002 16:46:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 09:46:43 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.50 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:46:42 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:46:42 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2002 16:46:43.0253 (UTC) FILETIME=[81D43650:01C2408D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.50] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14983 Let me try to clarify how I see this inensional/extensional issue so you can correct me where I got it wrong. We are dealing with this English sentence: E1) He wears the blanket as a coat. And these two Lojban sentences: L1) ko'a dasni le boxfo lo kosta L2) ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta Now, first about E1. According to my understanding, the intensional reading is the standard one for that sentence. I can force an extensional reading if I try hard, but it is certainly not how I would normally understand it. The normal reading of E1 cannot be put into logical form as: there is some coat x, such that he wears the blanket as x. The normal interpretation would be something like "he wears the blanket as if the blanket was a coat", thus providing a clear intensional context for "a coat". Do we agree so far, or would you say that the extensional reading of E1 is more prevalent? Now for the Lojban. Lojban does not allow the intensional/extensional ambiguity to arise. L1 only has the extensional reading (the one that I hold E1 hardly ever would have). This is because any {lo} term, as well as any {le} term, are always extensional in the bridi in which they appear. There is no possible intensional reading of L1. Quantifiers are intrinsically extensional. What about L2? L2 does not deal extensionally with the set of coats, so at least in that respect it is a better translation of the normal sense of E1. {dasni} could have been defined in other ways. For example: x1 wears x2 as if it were a member of set x3 or: x1 wears x2 as if it had property x3 If one of those was the definition of dasni, then the proper way of translating E1 would be respectively: L3) ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'i kosta L4) ko'a dasni le boxfo le ka ce'u kosta and those would also be fine because neither of them deals with the set of coats extensionally, only intensionally. But that is not how dasni is defined, so L2 remains the best translation I can think of, using the gi'uste definition of {dasni}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx