Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:46:31 +0100

>>> Adam Raizen <[email-masked]> 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? 

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

#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". 

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

--And.