From sentto-44114-15852-1032399157-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Sep 18 18:34:54 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.84]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rqDT-0008Ld-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:34:52 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15852-1032399157-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Sep 2002 01:32:38 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 01:32:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 26377 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 01:28:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 01:28:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 01:28:49 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-71.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.71]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C6B753D6ED for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 03:28:46 +0200 (DST) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:30:25 +0100 Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1340 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Jorge: > >I prefer the definition of {lo'e} as the gadri appropriate to > >singleton categories. When applied to a category ordinarily > >conceptualized as nonsingleton, it forces an appropriate > >reconceptualization. (Technically called "coercion" in cognitive > >linguistics.) > > I don't have a problem with that, as long as those singleton > categories can't instantiate {da}, which is extensional par > excellence. In other words {lo'e broda cu brode} should not > entail {lo broda cu brode}, but also not even {da brode}. I go along with you about {lo'e broda} not entailing {da broda}. If {lo'i broda cu no mei}, then no da broda but we can still legitimately talk about lo'e broda. But we may disagree about the other bit. I see no difference between {lo'e broda cu klama} and {la tom klama}. Both, I think, entail {da klama}, yet both may lack an extension in a given world. If we say "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi", I don't see why that shouldn't entail "da blabi", within the worlds in which {lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi} or {la tom cu blabi} (where la tom is a or the unicorn) is true. --And. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/