From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 07:38:02 2001
Return-Path: <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 14:36:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 68084 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 14:36:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 14:36:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 14:38:02 -0000
Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer);
  Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:15:17 +0100
Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk
  with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:46:47 +0100
Message-Id: <sbb88fe7.061@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:46:31 +0100
To: lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
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 <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>

>>> Adam Raizen <araizen@newmail.net> 10/01/01 01:55pm >>>
#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?=20

Because "le" sumti can be exported to the outermost bridi (and beyond),
while "lo" sumti are quantified in the localmost bridi.=20

#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.

Where we do have 'intensional contexts' they consist of a bridi that
is sumti of an 'intensional predicate'. A lo sumti that occurs within
such a bridi cannot be exported out of it, and hence is confined to
the intensional context. The same is not true for "le".=20

You are right that both "le" and "lo" are in themselves extensional.

--And.