Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

["Lionel Vidal" <nessus@free.fr>]

la xorxes cusku di'e>
> To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes
> a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification
> of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how
> you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts
> if you don't think so.

I am lost here: I thought the grammar said clearly that in
{da zo'u broda tu'a da} the {da zo'u} could be freely omitted
with no change in semantic, and so I don't see how
{broda tu'a da} could claim a different thing, intensional contexts
or not. Or maybe I fail to read an other discussion where you
agree on redefining this grammar point in intensional contexts.
Could you give an example with true selbris where the two have
to be different?

> We can now give a precise definition of {broda} in terms
> of {kairbroda}:
> ko'a broda ko'e = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e
> ko'a is broda to ko'e = ko'a is broda to something that
>                       has the property of being ko'e

I don't understand your use of {tu'o} here.  Is that what makes
{du'u ce'u du k'oe} a true property?  Or to say it differently,
how do you get a property out of a predication abstraction?

Sorry if my questions sound too basic: I am just trying to
follow the discussion and understand the different point of
views, being well aware that my lojban current understanding
may be inapropriate.

mu'omi'e lioNEL