From Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de Tue Aug 20 06:56:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 20 Aug 2002 13:56:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 42478 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2002 13:56:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2002 13:56:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spree.gedas.de) (139.1.44.12) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2002 13:56:47 -0000 Received: from spree.gedas.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03334 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:56:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg (blnsem05.gedas.de [139.1.84.49]) by spree.gedas.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03317 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:56:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:56:09 +0200 Message-ID: To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:56:06 +0200 Return-Receipt-To: "Newton, Philip" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Newton, Philip" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=23036112 X-Yahoo-Profile: elder_newton ly pycyn. cu cusku di'e > > On the whole, moving off into the intensional seems the right > > thing to do > > I do not understand what you mean here; what does "intensional" mean? > > > (and what xorxes would have {lo'e} do, usually). > > For right now, the crucial thing about intensional contexts (inside > the scope of abstractions and a few other places) is that you can't > quantify out of them. I'm afraid I don't understand that, either ("quantify out of them"). > {mi nelci lo nu mi citka lo/loi cakla} does NOT entail {da poi cakla > zo'u mi nelci lo nu citka da}. Similarly, {mi nelci tu'a lo cakla} > does not entail either {da poi cakla zo'u mi nelci tu'a da} or > {... nelci da}. Thus xorxes problem is avoided without resorting to > {lo'e} (whose chief function often is just to avoid this problem -- > in xorxes' usage). Sorry; that doesn't help me, either. Can you explain it a different way, perhaps? (Or maybe I need to take a semester or two of linguistics to get this, in which case trying to explain may be futile. I can't tell. Sorry for being thick about this whole thing.) mu'omi'e filip. [email copies appreciated, since I read the digest] {ko fukpi mrilu .i'o fi mi ki'u le du'u mi te mrilu loi notseljmaji} -- filip.niutyn. All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.