From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 15 13:05:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 15 Sep 2002 20:05:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 63432 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2002 20:05:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2002 20:05:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.146) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2002 20:05:19 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:05:19 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.50 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 20:05:19 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 20:05:19 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2002 20:05:19.0185 (UTC) FILETIME=[37262410:01C25CF3] 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: 15713 la pycyn cusku di'e >We are left with what I take to be true and also what xorxes is trying to >say >regardless of how often he rejects it: {lo'e broda} for xorxes is like >{lo'e >broda} in Lojban in that it signals a complex hypothetical claim that >relies >on le du'u ce'u broda I won't deny that until I see the complex hypothetical claim expressed in Lojban. Unless it is so hypothetical that it can't be expressed, in which case I have no problem with it. :) >and says something about the members of lo'i broda. I think a claim using {lo'e broda} does not claim anything about any particular member of lo'i broda, and it would make sense even in the extreme cases when there are no members. >In >xorxes' case (barring the not yet forthcoming better story) it says what >the >essential features are, in Lojban what the typical features are. I'm not sure I understand the point here. Saying {mi nelci lo'e cakla} does not claim that my liking chocolate is essential to chocolate (nor that it is typical of chocolate, for that matter). It does not preclude either that my liking of chocolate comes from my liking of what some might consider some non-essential feature of chocolate: maybe I like chocolate because it brings back memories of something, but bringing memories of something would not be an essential property of chocolate. So I don't understand what essential properties have to do with my position. The only property involved as I see it is {le ka ce'u cakla}. << >It has the quantifier of {da} within the scope of the negation, >so that I can't continue talking about the same "one" in the >next sentence > >> >Well, CLL waffles on that, so, if you did it, no one would complain much, >and >you can always use {ice} rather than just {i}. I can do it grammatically, yes. It just doesn't make any sense logically. >You can also use anaphora (if >it is possible to use Lojban anaphora reliably): {le go'i} or {ra} or ...Or >you can tag even {da} with {goi}. But referring back to a bound variable outside the binding context returns nonsense. Consider for example: noda zo'u da klama Nobody came. What does {le go'i} refer to? What if we express it as: roda zo'u da naku klama mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com