From araizen@newmail.net Mon Oct 01 06:17:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 13:17:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 37814 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 13:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 13:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw2.netvision.net.il) (194.90.1.9) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 13:16:59 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (ras2-p29.rvt.netvision.net.il [62.0.180.158]) by mailgw2.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA01065 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:16:59 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <085b01c14a7b$829acb20$d8b5003e@oemcomputer> To: "lojban" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:55:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" la .and. cusku di'e > #Whether or not {le tenfa be li 389017 bei li 1/3} is a good way > #or not to refer to {li 73} is up to the speaker, and has nothing > #to do with John's beliefs in (1). > > I agree IFF you leave the gadri as {le} -- le se nanca, le tenfa. > If they're {le}, then (1-2) can rewrite as: Why is there a difference between 'le' and 'lo' in terms of extensionality? It seems to me that the ex/intensionality changes when 'lo broda' changes to 'da zo'u ge da broda gi da ...'. This how it's normally described/defined, which is 'something which fits into the x1 place'. Clearly extensional. mu'o mi'e .adam.