From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Nov 26 12:40:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 20:40:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 65638 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 20:40:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 20:40:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.140) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 20:40:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:40:39 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:40:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Practical cooperation 1: "is intended to be" Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:40:39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2001 20:40:39.0496 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BEB2C80:01C176BA] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la maikl cusku di'e >And of course i think it was la xorxes who coined "skudji" for >this very purpose... I think there are several related but different ideas dancing around here. {skudji} works for "x1 means to say x2", but this is not exactly what John is asking for. If I say "shit" when I mean to say "sheet" (something that may very well happen as the two sounds are hard to distinguish for me) then that does not mean that I intend "shit" to mean "sheet", I certainly have no such intention. I just had the intention of saying "sheet", whatever it is that I in fact said. So {mi skudji zoi gy sheet gy} but not {mi zukte fi le du'u zoi gy sheet gy smuni zoi gy shit gy}. What John is asking for is a relationship between: x1: an object of intention x2: an intention x3: an intender It seems to me that separating the object of intention from the intention should be a second step. First we need the more basic intender-intention relationship. This is {zukte be zi'o}, unfortunately we don't have anything simpler. So we have: zilzu'e: x1 has intention x2 jai se zilzu'e: x1 is intended by x2 to be x3 The order that John wants would be achieved by: setesejaise zilzu'e: x1 is intended to be x2 by x3 Also similar would be: jai selzu'e: x1 is acted upon by x2 with intention x3 Or reordering: setesejai selzu'e: x1 is intended to be x2 by actor x3 in this latter case x3 doesn't just intend something about x1 but does some action to the effect. mu'o i'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp