Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:44:26 +0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

><<
>So would it be {mi nelci lo'ezu'o citka loi cakla}, then?
> >>
>No, it almost certainly shouldn't be {lo'e zu'o}, though perhaps it is {lo
>zu'o} rather than {le}.
[...]
>If you say {le} at this point, the fair
>question is "which ones are those?" since you have some particular ones in
>mind. So, it is safer to say {lo}, some but unspecified.

If he likes that he is eating chocolate once in his life, he could
say {mi nelci lo zu'o mi citka loi cakla}. Surely he wants
to claim more than that?

>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.

But the problem here is that events, like objects (but unlike
facts probably), should be treated extensionally with le/lo.
So while you have taken care of the quantification over
chocolates, you are still left with a quantification over
events of eating chocolate. We want to refer to such events
intensionally, generically, we don't want a quantifier that
runs over all such events.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com