From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:58:17 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:58:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 95099 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:50:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:12 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010907005010.NZEJ710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:50:10 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:27 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGEKCEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <01a601c13350$eb9511e0$74b6003e@oemcomputer>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Adam:
> la .xorxes. cusku di'e
> 
> > >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:
> 
> But doesn't this cause other problems? Don't we still want to be able
> to say "lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a", which won't work here since
> properties don't inhabit anything. (Unless you don't want to be able
> to say that.)

I think that Jorge's conception of {lo'e} has always been incompatible
with {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}. But {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko}
is objectionable, because it is prone to ambiguity. For example, we
can discuss the prototypical or archetypal lion, without it then
being the case that non-atypical lions have been discussed by us.
Gadri + sumti tail is simply not the right way to do archetypes; it
clearly calls for some sort of bridi abstraction, such that xabju
le friko would be within the abstraction, while "discussed by us"
would be outside.

--And.