Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> I'm sorry; the way you brought that up made it seem like you had a special
> point here rather than a (largely irrelevant) truism.  Notice that {dasni 
> vi
> le birka janco} behaves just like {biryjancydasni} define as "x1 wears x2 
> on
> his shoulders as x3".

It doesn't work in general, because of the quantifier on {le}.
It only works if you assume {le pa birka janco}, otherwise the
two predicates behave quite differently with some arguments.

> I don't see what that has to do with {lo'e}, since it
> works as well with any sumti place.

You can only do it with singular terms like {lo'e}.


> Sorry again.  Iassumed that the Spanish translation of the cmavo list would
> have  {lo'e} described as an archetype of rather than a typical member of .
> Glad to hear that I am wrong (if that is the mesage you are sending).

I translated the cmavo list faithfully, warts and all. But the English
version has to be rewritten for publication anyway, so hopefully the
final version will be closer to what I want.

> The
> first Spanish case here is interesting because it precisely does not 
> suggest
> that there is a coat involved and that may be what colors your view of the
> matter -- though throwing in an archetype rather than a coat hardly helps.
> The second is, of course, just like the English and my recommended Lojban 
> and
> generates one or the other of the same products, though I don't know which
> one.  Your remarks suggests the intentional one: a possible coat, even if 
> not
> one in this world.

The intensional reading is not possible with lojban {lo}. The
quantifier on {lo} goes directly to the prenex.


> What does {lo'e}, in either sense, have to do with intentional
> contexts?  {lo'e broda} for every broda that is proper (as {kosta} surely 
> is)
> is in this world and so quantifiable to a {da}.

I'm not sure I understand what you say here. {lo'e broda cu brode}
in general does not entail {lo broda cu brode}.

> <<
> But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because
> no coat is involved in the relationship.
> >>
> You do keep saying that, but I still don't see what the evidence is for the
> claim (other than that you don't know how to find one of those involved --
> which was not claimed).

My only evidence is my understanding of the sentence. The way
I understand it, it involves no coat, it only involves coatness.
If you understand it as "there is at least one coat such that..."
then we simply understand it differently, and of course we will
then translate it differently.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com