Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:04:06 +0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

>I
>think that all places ought to be extensional, but that we screw up
>occasionally.

Whereas I think we cannot screw up in that respect even if
we try, so there is no "ought", because
intensionality/extensionality is not in the places
themselves. We don't need for example an intensionality police
to make sure that all places in all new lujvo and fu'ivla that
are introduced into the language comply with {lo broda cu brode}
= {da poi broda zo'u da brode}. This relationship holds
automatically for all broda, no matter how devious you try to
make the definition.

>But you can't have it both ways, {le du'u ce'u broda} is a quantified
>descriptor but is intensional. And it is, of course a reference to mebers 
>of
>lo'i du'u ce'u broda.

The propositions are referenced extensionally.
{lo du'u broda cu brode} is equivalent to
{da poi ke'a du'u broda zo'u da brode}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx