From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 20 19:30:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 21 Aug 2002 02:30:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 90848 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 02:30:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2002 02:30:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 02:30:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.139.13268583 (4402) for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <139.13268583.2a945538@aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:30:16 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_139.13268583.2a945538_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_139.13268583.2a945538_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/20/2002 6:24:47 PM Central Daylight Time, slobin@ice.ru writes: << > As far as I understand xorxean point, he uses {lo'e} as an intensional > article. I agree that we need such thing, but I'm not sure {lo'e} does > the job. >> Well, I am not sure what an intensional article is; I suppose an article used to make a reference to an intensional object out of a bridi or bridi tail (suitably modified if need be). This, of course, leaves open *which* intension object it is: proposition, property, event,.... What, in short, is lo'e cakla? (I have a problem with what an intensional bit of chocolate would be.) On the rare occasions when xorxes has deigned to say something about these critters clear enough to give a glimmer of what he means, the glimmer has always shown what looks to be a perfectly ordinary intensional context ({nu, du'u, ...}) usually with unmarked subject raising. Now, I'm not sure that is what it is or that it will always give that view, but until we get a pretty clear statement from xorxes, I'm sticky with the history. --part1_139.13268583.2a945538_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/20/2002 6:24:47 PM Central Daylight Time, slobin@ice.ru writes:

<<

As far as I understand xorxean point, he uses {lo'e} as an intensional
article. I agree that we need such thing, but I'm not sure {lo'e} does
the job.

>>
Well, I am not sure what an intensional article is; I suppose an article used to make a reference to an intensional object out of a bridi or bridi tail (suitably modified if need be). This, of course, leaves open *which* intension object it is: proposition, property, event,.... What, in short, is lo'e cakla? (I have a problem with what an intensional bit of chocolate would be.)
On the rare occasions when xorxes has deigned to say something about these critters clear enough to give a glimmer of what he means, the glimmer has always shown what looks to be a perfectly ordinary intensional context ({nu, du'u, ...}) usually with unmarked subject raising. Now, I'm not sure that is what it is or that it will always give that view, but until we get a pretty clear statement from xorxes, I'm sticky with the history.
--part1_139.13268583.2a945538_boundary--