From Philip.Newton@datenrevision.de Tue Aug 20 09:34:57 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 16:34:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 36572 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2002 16:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2002 16:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO spree.gedas.de) (139.1.44.12) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2002 16:34:56 -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 SAA06367 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:34:44 +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 SAA06359 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:34:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by blnsem05.de.gedas.vwg with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:34:14 +0200 Message-ID: To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:34:13 +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 la pycyn. cu cusku di'e > Briefly, an expression like {le/lo broda} refers one or more > things which are broda and exist in the world [...] > > That was thoroughly unhelpful, I suspect. No -- it sounded more comprehensible to me than the brief version you wrote earlier. ki'esai .pycyn. So when you wrote earlier that xorxes likes to use {lo'e} to make things intensional, this is because a "typical it" need not be an it which actually exists but is more a conceptual thing? In which case it would, by itself (without the need for a further abstractor) inhabit a "separate world". And when you wrote earlier > {mi nelci lo nu mi citka lo/loi cakla} does NOT entail {da poi > cakla zo'u mi nelci lo nu citka da} you meant that I can talk about liking to eat chocolate without having to have in mind any particular chocolate -- or without there even having to exist any chocolate at all? I think I still haven't got my head wrapped around the whole concept (and am not sure why it was important whether {lo nu mi citka lo cakla} is intensional or extensional). But I think that the exchange we had means that {mi nelci lo zu'o mi citka lo cakla} is acceptable, without there having to be any chocolate in particular, and without my having to like every instance of eating every chocolate? mi ckire rodo leka do depcni (??) 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.