From araizen@newmail.net Mon Oct 01 06:17:00 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
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 <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:16:59 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <085b01c14a7b$829acb20$d8b5003e@oemcomputer>
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <sbb3292a.091@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
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" <araizen@newmail.net>

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.