On the other hand, {le broda be ko'e} and

{le brode be ko'e} both have the same referent (namely ko'a,

if {ko'a broda ko'e}).

Well, it depends. Is it the case that for each se broda there is exactly one broda and similarly for {brode} and, if not, are we sure that the speaker has picked the same thig and decided to call it both {broda} and {brode}. I see your point, but it only works under a sterong set of assumptions. Now, for {mamta} those assumptions hold (pretty much) and we can proceed, for {broda} and {brode} I am not sure. For the moment, I will assume they do, to see where you are going.

<Now then, {le du'u makau broda ce'u} and {le du'u makau brode ce'u}

are different functions into propositions: they each give a different

proposition for any given value of ce'u.>

And the same value of {makau}: I would insist that the {makau} has to be sorted first, and & has convinced me of this (though it may not have been hos point).

<What about {le broda be ce'u} and {le brode be ce'u}, assuming

this is a valid way of using {ce'u} (I don't think it is, but

for the sake of argument)? Both give the same values for any given

value of ce'u. Do the two expressions refer to the same function,

the way that both {le broda} and {le brode} refer to the same

object?>

Under the circumstances we have jointly managed to describe, the are the same function, referred to in different ways, just as the morning star and the evening star are the same planet referred to in different ways.

<If they both refer to the same function, then this is clearly

not what we normally want as a te frica, since what we want

there is the intension, not the extension.>

Not at all. We get propositions with different truth values, or sizes with different numerical values or... all totally extensional at the crucial point. That is, the crucial thing about {le du'u makau mamta ce'u} in the context {ko'a ko'e frica} (your Spanish order unnerves me slightly) is that there are values of/replacements for {makau}, {ko'i} say, such that replacing {ce'u} by {ko'a} and {ko'e} results in two propsoitons which have different truth vlaues: gonai ko'i mamta ko'a gi ko'i mamta ko'e. Where is the intension here, except as a way to get to the extension. {le mamta ce'u} is quicker -- and if it works for {broda} it would apparently work for {brode} too.

<If they refer to different functions, this is a further violation

of the usual meaning of {le}, which is normally extensional.>

Ah, nice to agree about something.

--part1_39.1b401b08.28e490dc_boundary--