Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

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

la pycyn cusku di'e

> <<
> So would it be {mi nelci lo'ezu'o citka loi cakla}, then?
> >>
> No, it almost certainly shouldn't be {lo'e zu'o}, though perhaps it is {lo
> zu'o} rather than {le}.
[...]
> If you say {le} at this point, the fair
> question is "which ones are those?" since you have some particular ones in
> mind.  So, it is safer to say {lo}, some but unspecified.

If he likes that he is eating chocolate once in his life, he could
say {mi nelci lo zu'o mi citka loi cakla}. Surely he wants
to claim more than that?

> For right now, the crucial thing about intensional contexts (inside the 
> scope
> of abstractions and a few other places) is that you can't quantify out of
> them.

But the problem here is that events, like objects (but unlike
facts probably), should be treated extensionally with le/lo.
So while you have taken care of the quantification over
chocolates, you are still left with a quantification over
events of eating chocolate. We want to refer to such events
intensionally, generically, we don't want a quantifier that
runs over all such events.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com