From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 05:57:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 12:57:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 20143 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 12:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 12:57:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 12:57:57 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:35:14 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:06:52 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:06:26 +0100 To: cowan , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta John: #And Rosta scripsit: #> I believe that the mainstream view among lojbanists is that everything #> receives the extensional reading, except for LE du'u sumti, which are #> intensional. # #I think nu is just as intensional, li'i too, and probably all the NUs, #when you come right down to it. Can you give some examples or evidence? If du'u were always intensional, then I would accept that all NU are, since I maintain that all NU can be paraphrased by brivla + du'u be zi'o sumti. But is it not the case that intensionality shows up only in certain context= s, chiefly as argument of cognitive predicates? -- and -- errant usage aside -= -- such arguments should be du'u rather than some other NU. --And.