From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 01 09:41:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 16:41:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 81787 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 16:41:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 16:41:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 16:41:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.14d.1d421c7 (4185) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:41:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14d.1d421c7.28e9f6b7@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:41:27 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14d.1d421c7.28e9f6b7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_14d.1d421c7.28e9f6b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 9:38:34 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Because "le" sumti can be exported to the outermost bridi (and beyond), > while "lo" sumti are quantified in the localmost bridi. > > 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. > An interesting rule; whence cometh it? mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi --part1_14d.1d421c7.28e9f6b7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/1/2001 9:38:34 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


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

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.


An interesting rule; whence cometh it?  
mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi --part1_14d.1d421c7.28e9f6b7_boundary--