From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 17:09:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 21 Aug 2002 00:09:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 50839 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 00:09:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2002 00:09:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.13) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 00:09:20 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:09:20 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.30 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:09:20 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:09:20 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2002 00:09:20.0109 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF1459D0:01C248A6] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.30] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 Let's start with the most concrete case: mi nelci le nu mi citka le vi cakla I like eating this chocoalte. Here {le nu mi citka le vi cakla} refers to the present event of my eating this chocolate. I can refer to that very same event with another description: {le nu mi citka lo cakla}. This descriprtion is more vague, but still describes the present event. Now, I could also say, based only on the fact that I like eating this chocolate, that: mi nelci lo nu mi citka lo cakla There is at least one event in which some chocolate is eaten by me that I like. That's all that says. There may very well be more events, but I'm not saying anything about that. The events in which some chocolate is eaten by me may even be imaginary. But in any case I am referring to the events in which some chocolate is eaten by me extensionally, on a one by one basis. When I say in English "I like eating chocolate", I don't mean to refer extensionally to the events in which I eat chocolate. {mi nelci lo nu citka lo cakla} does not say that I like eating chocolates as a rule. la pycyn cusku di'e >An the other hand, we >can assume -- and I think {lo} implicates this -- that he has actually been >in a few of these events at least and enjoyed them, so the existential >conditions are met. I don't see why we can assume that. >And may yet be met by future case -- or maybe not. What >else may be implied is probably covered by some tense-like critter: {ta'e} >or >{so'eroi} spring to mind. Whatever {ta'e} or {so'eroi} provide, they will provide as well for {mi nelci lo cakla}, so this is not particular to {lo nu}: mi ta'e nelci lo nu mi citka lo cakla Habitually it is the case that there is some eating of chocolate that I like. mi ta'e nelci lo cakla Habitually it is the case that there is some chocolate that I like. Both are equally unsatisfactory, since what I want to claim is not about habitually there being instances of chocolate or instances (real or imaginary) of eating. Indeed my liking of chocolate may be a permanent thing rather than habitual. To make the parallel even clearer, we can use {nunmibycaklycitka} instead of {nu mi citka lo cakla}: mi nelci lo nunmibycaklycitka There is some eating-of-chocolate-by-me that I like. >Facts, being propositions, are as quantifiable as things or events. In >Lojban, all of then exist, whether or not they obtain. I'm not sure what that means. I think the proper way to use {du'u} should be as {tu'o du'u}, with no quantifier. What do these mean: la djak djuno pa du'u la djil sipna la djak djuno re du'u la djil sipna la djak djuno ro du'u la djil sipna Does any of them make any sense? What are the members of {lo'i du'u la djil sipna}? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx