From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 11:18:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 18:18:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 37765 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 18:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 18:18:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 18:18:40 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:56:02 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:27:44 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:27:10 +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 >>> 10/01/01 05:41pm >>> #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.=20 #>=20 #> 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 #>=20 #> You are right that both "le" and "lo" are in themselves extensional. # #An interesting rule; whence cometh it?=20=20 A mixture of mutually-reinforcing reason and lojban tradition. We insist that the scope of the quantification of {lo} be determinate. The how-to-say-its work out easiest if {lo} is bound in the localmost. As for {le}, it is in the nature of specificity that it works that way, so there was no decision to take. #mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi I am guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that you mean to say that that sentence has a reading that is not equivalent to le melbi goi ko'a mi senva le nu ko'a cenba mi If so, I don't see it. I can't think of any way of reading the one sd true and the other as false, for some context. Just to preempt a possible round of exchanges, "le" is sometimes glossed as "the speaker knows which". This is merely indicative rather than= definitional, if {le} is truly defined as +specific. Its actual definition= is that the referent must be fixed before the truth-conditions can be evaluated. --And.