Re: I like chocolate

["jjllambias2000" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la lioNEL cusku di'e

> 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, 

No, you can only omit the prenex if the term is in the main
selbri: {da zo'u broda da} is indeed equivalent to {broda da},
but when it is within another bridi, {tu'a da} is {le du'u
da co'e}, then the quantifier can only go to the prenex of 
that inner bridi: {broda le du'u da zo'u da co'e}.

> and so I don't see how
> {broda tu'a da} could claim a different thing, intensional contexts
> or not. 

There are no special provisions for intensional contexts in
Lojban. All these manipulations work the same independently
of the meaning of {broda}.

> Or maybe I fail to read an other discussion where you
> agree on redefining this grammar point in intensional contexts.

No, nothing here is redefined. The only thing that can be
considered non-standard is my definition of {lo'e}, but 
since there is no clear official definition, it is hardly
a redefinition.

> Could you give an example with true selbris where the two have
> to be different?

     lo skami zo'u mi nitcu tu'a sy
     There is a computer such that I need to do 
     something about it (or something be done about it, 
     or that it do something, or... but the point is that
     there is a computer in such a situation)

     mi nitcu tu'a lo skami
     I need that there be a computer such that I do something
     about, or it does something, etc.


> 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?

{ka ce'u broda} is equivalent to {du'u ce'u broda}

There was a lot of discussion about this in the past. You can
just read {du'u ce'u} as {ka} if you like. The difference
between {du'u} and {ka} is that when no {ce'u} is made 
explicit, then {ka} indicates that there is at least one
while {du'u} indicates that there is none.

{tu'o} is the "quantifier" you use when you don't want a
quantifier. 

> 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.

Good luck!  :)

mu'o mi'e xorxes