|
In a message dated 9/28/2002 7:21:26 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << I was just pointing out the parallels with my use of {lo'e}.>> I wish that made {lo'e} a little clearer, but I still don't see why the claimed assymetry holds in the {lo'e} case (and am open to other treatments in the case of nonexistents). Nor is the next analogy any clearer: << >In particular, the Victoria we >are talking about is the familiar one, not one of her surrogates in a book >or >elsewhere; Correct. That's why I can only bring up the property of being her (which is what lo'e does, but using that property, not referring to that property), and not herself. >> The talk about using a property rather than referring to it has not gotten clearer over the weeks and this does not help -- why can't I refer to Victoria rather than to the property of being Victoria (and why would I want to refer to the latter)? To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |