From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 15:53:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 22:53:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 44323 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 22:53:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 22:53:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.29) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 22:53:49 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:53:49 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.38 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:53:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.38] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:53:49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2001 22:53:49.0496 (UTC) FILETIME=[A37FEB80:01C12CEF] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >Clearly (?) if lo'e gerku actually means "the typical", i.e. "lo fadni be >tu'o ka gerku", then it won't do what you want it to. And anyway, >it'd be annoying to have 2 gadri for le/lo fadni. Indeed. It's more like "the archetype". The default quantifier of {lo'e} should be {tu'o}. >Now, you tell me that lo'e gerku is the intension. To me, then, that >would be "tu'o ka ce'u zo'e gerku" or "tu'o ka ce'u ce'u gerku". Wow, I think I'm having an epiphany. It's definitely not the latter, because {lo'e gerku} clearly selects the x1 of gerku. But the former, yes, I think I'm starting to like it. Let's see how it would work: ta mutce le ka barda = ta mutce lo'e barda That is much in bigness, that is much as a big thing. ti ta frica le ka ce'u viska makau = ti ta frica lo'e viska be makau This and that differ in what they see, this and that differ as seers of whatever they see. Yes, it seems to work. This has a very interesting consequence: I don't need to keep carping on about the place structure of {sisku}. mi sisku lo'e tanxe = mi sisku le ka ce'u tanxe I look for a box, I look for that which has the property of being a box. Of course, it is still weird that {sisku} is singled out the way it is in the wording of the definition, but now we can treat all such predicates the same way: mi nitcu lo'e tanxe = mi nitcu le ka ce'u tanxe mi cpedu lo'e tanxe = mi cpedu le ka ce'u tanxe mi djica lo'e tanxe = mi djica le ka ce'u tanxe And of course we can use these predicates in the normal way with non-opaque references: mi nitcu le mi karce mi cpedu ta >I don't see how {tu'o ka ce'u nu} is going to solve >the erroneous {le nu}s, At least some of them: mi nitcu lo'e nu do ti mi dunda mi djica lo'e nu mi klama mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp