From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 21:45:22 2001 Return-Path: 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: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:33:34 +0100 To: araizen , 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: #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 " be different from "le broda"? If 'le' #always refers to the extension, then doesn't "le du'u " refer #to the extension of "du'u "? 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.