From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Aug 09 08:46:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 15:46:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 45337 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 15:46:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 15:46:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.54) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 15:46:06 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:46:06 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:46:06 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:46:06 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2002 15:46:06.0719 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFDF68F0:01C23FBB] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >Probably the first one you come across would do. Put it on ko'a and see if >it works like his blanket. If so, then the case is proven. Else, try >another (but it is hard to imagine -- though I expect you will manage -- >how >it would fail). So you would claim that: ko'a dasni le boxfo so'e kosta He wears the blanket as most coats. You would claim that: There is some coat x, such that he wears the blanket as x. I don't think that's what "he wears the blanket as a coat" means. I don't think {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta} entails {ko'a dasni le boxfo da}. To me {lo'e kosta} is similar to {zi'o} in this regard, it changes the predicate reducing the number of places by one. >Well, look at mathematics. Existence proofs are often non-constructive, as >are the hypotheses that lead up to them: many people believe there are >rpimes >of the appropriate sort that are not Mersenne numbers but few expect a >proof >that gives one. I don't expect a proof here. I want to understand the claim. You say that there is a coat x (even if we don't care which one, and even if we can't find it) such that that coat x is in relationship {dasni} with ko'a and the blanket. I don't want to say there is any such coat. If you present any coat to me and ask whether he is wearing the blanket as that coat, I would tend to say no, he is not wearing it as that coat. >Which is it? The tenses mark where the event is or the tenses mark where >the >items in the event are (notice x3 is NOT there and, indeed, is perhaps >nowhere in this world, an ancient Roman toga, for example). I go with the >event, as you did originally. Yes, I go with the event too. I thought that the place where an event took place had to contain all the participants of the event. ><< >{pe} would be used to identify which boxfo you're talking about: >the one on the shoulder, as opposed to some other blanket. I think >{be} would work like that too, so it would have to be {ne}. > >> > >Well, I agree about {pe} and probably about {ne}. {be} is harder, since >officially it makes {le birka janco} occupy a place in the structure of >{boxfo} (a place not usually there, to be sure) and the exact relation of >that place to the rest of the structure is unspecified. It does seem to be >more intimate than {ne}, but not obviously restrictive like {pe}. {be} makes what follows a part of the description, so it has to be restrictive. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com