RE: [jboske] la, lai, me

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

John:
> pycyn@aol.com scripsit:
> 
> > > The example in CLL is:
> > > 
> > > la BALtazar cu me le ci nolraitru
> > > Balthazar is one of the three kings.
> > Why repeat that strange {me} in the explanation? Surely just {du} does it.
> 
> No, that asserts that the name "Balthazar" and "the three kings" are
> co-referential.
> 
> The Randall Holmes "me" means "x1 is among the referents of the governed
> sumti", and so is not referentially transparent.

Maybe a light bulb will go on over my head, but so far I see it pc's
way. Maybe {la BALtazar cu me lu le ci nolraitru} would be such that
it ought to have the holmesian meaning. Same goes for {la BALtazar
cu me la'i ci nolraitru}.

But as things stand, the x2 of me fails to export to the prenex in
an ordinary way, & I'm confident we would find logical problems
aplenty with that.

It's quite easy to say "Balthazat is one of the three kings" in
other ways:

la baltazar cu cmima le'i ci nolraitru

la baltazar cu du su'o le ci nolraitru

la baltazar cu me su'o le ci nolraitru [-- if me works in the
ordinary way]

FWIW, for me, {me} means "x1 has the property of x2hood", "x1
has the haecceity/seity of x2, with the haecceity/seity being 
reconceived as quiddity". By "haecceity/seity" I mean the
properties that form the truth-conditions for {du}, and by
"quiddity" I mean the properties that form the truth conditions
for {(na) frica} (= mintu?). Feel free to correct my use of these
terms, but rocognize that that is incidental to the point I am
making.

--And.