From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 21:45:22 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); 2 Oct 2001 04:43:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 73395 invoked by uid 0); 2 Oct 2001 04:42:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 33232 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 13:23:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 13:23:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 13:24:53 -0000
Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer);
  Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:02:18 +0100
Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk
  with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:33:57 +0100
Message-Id: <sbb87ed5.029@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:33:34 +0100
To: araizen <araizen@newmail.net>, 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:
#la .and. cusku di'e
#> I believe that the mainstream view among lojbanists is that everything
#> receives the extensional reading, except for LE du'u sumti, which are
#> intensional.
#
#Why would "le du'u <bridi>" be different from "le broda"? If 'le'
#always refers to the extension, then doesn't "le du'u <bridi>" refer
#to the extension of "du'u <bridi>"?

I agree with this. But this follows from properties of "le".

As you may have noticed from my use ot "tu'odu'uo", I dislike gadri
with d'u', but dislike "le du'u" most of all. I exclude from this condemna=
tion
Jorge's analysis of du'u qkau, where gadri do make sense.

--And.