From phma@oltronics.net Mon Oct 01 06:38:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 13:38:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 658 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 13:38:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 13:38:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.242) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 13:38:03 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id ADCB13C542; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net To: "lojban" Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:32:02 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01100109320201.29287@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat On Saturday 29 September 2001 22:32, And Rosta wrote: > IOW, what I am trying to say is that the intensional/extensional > distinction carries over to all cognitive/perceptual predicates. > > 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 have no idea what this means, let alone what my view is, and have no idea how you expect the language to succeed if you spend all your time quibbling about cmavo and not adding new brivla to the language. To clarify these questions, we need usage, and to get usage, we need vocabulary. phma