Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:54:38 EDT

In a message dated 8/9/2002 11:53:58 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> It doesn't work in general, because of the quantifier on {le}.
> It only works if you assume {le pa birka janco}, otherwise the
> two predicates behave quite differently with some arguments.
>>
Lost me again. The problem with {le birka janco} is that I might be using 
{birka janco} as a polite word for {tatru}, then it would not work at all. 
Otherwise, what happens? If anything, {lo} works much better here, since 
predicates are general (the specific works with {birka janco} since each 
person has only a specific number of them -- usually two). {ko'a dasni lo 
boxfo vi lo cmana} goes over smoothly to {ko'a cmana dasni lo boxfo} : "wears 
a blanket as x3 on a mountain" (and, indeed, "mountain wear" is probably a 
style term -- though that is probably {taxfu})
What does the quantifier have to do with things? We can, if you want, fold 
that into predicate without remainder, as I have done every time, albeit 
implicitly. That quantifier cannot be fronted, of course, but neither can 
the quantifier on {lo smani}, which does not occur anywhere in the text. 
That I cannot then get the fronted version of {vi lo cmana} should, from your 
point of view, be an advantage -- in case I wouldn't know how to find the 
mountain involved.

<<
The intensional reading is not possible with lojban {lo}. The
quantifier on {lo} goes directly to the prenex.

Connection? If the place is intentional, then the quantifier can't be 
fronted -- that is part of the meaning of "intentional context." Your 
problem with fronting it is why I suggested that you must have an intensional 
context in mind. 

<<
>What does {lo'e}, in either sense, have to do with intentional
>contexts? {lo'e broda} for every broda that is proper (as {kosta} surely 
>is)
>is in this world and so quantifiable to a {da}.

I'm not sure I understand what you say here. {lo'e broda cu brode}
in general does not entail {lo broda cu brode}.

Well, I am not sure just what your {lo'e broda} stands for, so I can't say 
whether what you say is true or not. It is probably false for "the typical" 
but true for "the average." In any case, that wasn't what I said, which was 
that {lo'e broda cu brode} entails {da brode} -- incontrast to where we seem 
to be about {ko'a dasni le boxfo lo kosta}, which (being an intentional 
context) does not entail {ko'a dasni lo boxfo da}.

<<
>But the former, at least to me, makes little sense, because
>no coat is involved in the relationship.
> >>
>You do keep saying that, but I still don't see what the evidence is for the
>claim (other than that you don't know how to find one of those involved --
>which was not claimed).

My only evidence is my understanding of the sentence. The way
I understand it, it involves no coat, it only involves coatness.
If you understand it as "there is at least one coat such that..."
then we simply understand it differently, and of course we will
then translate it differently.
Ahah! You mean "coatness" by {lo'e kosta} (do you?). Now, that also makes 
sense -- and avoids the intentional place (though {le du'u ce'u kosta} refer 
to an intentional object). And proerties are a good way to categorizes types 
of things, though the English reads rather strangely, perhaps even 
misleadingly.