From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Aug 13 07:12:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 13 Aug 2002 14:12:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 57101 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 14:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2002 14:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.129) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 14:12:58 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:12:58 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:12:57 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:12:57 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2002 14:12:58.0370 (UTC) FILETIME=[869C0620:01C242D3] 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 >In the only visible sense of "have as the second argument", >both {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} and {mi nitcu lo dinko} have nails as the >second argument, in one case in extension, in the other in intension. When I look at {tu'a lo dinko} I see {le du'u lo dinko cu co'e}. Maybe I am overly structured, but I can't see this as nails in intension, I keep seeing it as a proposition about nails. ><< >But the essence is that {broda lo'e brode} should not entail >{broda da}. > >> >This, of course, goes against your own principle that all bridi places are >extensional. Part of the problem is that you and I are speaking different languages. You start from the premise that places can be extensional or intensional. To me all places are neutral in this regard. It is only the way of referring to the members of a set that can be extensional or intensional. Quantified descriptors (lo/le) are extensional, and non-quantified descriptors (lo'e) are intensional. Neither {le ka ce'u broda} nor {le du'u lo broda cu co'e} is for me a reference to the members of lo'i broda, rather they refer to properties/propositions. >The nearest thing I have been able to come up with in trying to >understand this is {lo'e broda} in a place is part of a disjoint tanru (if >it >ain't a thing then its a predicate in Lojban) which has some effect on the >indicated place -- different from having it filled by a reference to a >broda, but distinctly brodaish, so different from what {lo'e brode} would >do. That's not a bad way of looking at it! {broda lo'e brode} can be thought of as {brode broda zi'o}, except that the tanru relationship is much more precise in the first case. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com