From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 12 15:53:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 12 Aug 2002 22:53:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 53714 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2002 22:53:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Aug 2002 22:53:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.207) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2002 22:53:21 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:53:21 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.25 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:53:20 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:53:20 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2002 22:53:21.0151 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E6C90F0:01C24253] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.25] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >If any nail >will do, then {mo nitcu lo dinko} will give the wrong impression, leading >us >to ask things like "which one?" The correct thing to say is {mi nitcu tu'a >lo dinko}, where the {tu'a} blocks all the extensional moves. On the other >hand, when time came to drive the golden spike, Mr. Stanford (or whoever) >could have said {mi nitcu lo dinko} and been quite all right, for the >question "which one?" has a meaningful answer. The way I understand {tu'a}, {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo dinko} are not compatible types of expression. I understand {tu'a lo dinko} as {le du'u lo dinko co'e}, and it sounds odd that {nitcu} could take either nails or propositions (or whatever du'u are) as its second argument. Or maybe we can say {mi nitcu lo dinko a le du'u lo dinko co'e}, but having the same word for "I need x" and "I need that x" does not sound very Lojbanic to me. On the other hand {mi nitcu lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo'e dinko} are compatible type of expressions, because both have nails as the second argument, in one case referred to by extension and in the other case by intension. ><< >The idea is that there is no named critter in the case of >{lo'e broda}, just as {zi'o} names no critter. > >> > >Well, take {lo'e broda} to be a sumti of some sort -- as {zi'o} is not, for >all it goes into a sumti place. What I'm suggesting is that all it does in the sumti place is blot it, just like {zi'o}, but differs from {zi'o} in that it blots and adds semantic content. Both leave behind a selbri with fewer places, and neither names a critter. >I thought it named the >typical/average/archetype of/type of broda, which is a thing in Lojban >terms, unless you have a better proposal (I do, by the way, at least for >some >of these readings, but I'm waiting for a good case to spring it again). I don't have a formal proposal, maybe I will adhere to yours. But the essence is that {broda lo'e brode} should not entail {broda da}. >And if {lo'e brode} is not a >sumti, if it really is like {zi'o} then it is a meaningless plug, like >{zi'o} >and so no different from {lo'e brodi} and the like. Why can't there be meaningful plugs? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com