From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 07:38:02 2001 Return-Path: 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: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:46:31 +0100 To: 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 >>> Adam Raizen 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.