From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Aug 20 21:30:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 21 Aug 2002 04:30:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 13551 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 04:30:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2002 04:30:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.102) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 04:30:11 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:30:11 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.40 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:30:11 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:30:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2002 04:30:11.0790 (UTC) FILETIME=[703556E0:01C248CB] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.40] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >I think the point you >are striving to make applies nicely to {levi cakla zo'u mi nelci le nu mi >citka cy} or some such thing, but that is precisely because the mention of >the chocolate is outside the intensional context and so bound to this >world. The point I'm trying to make does not depend on the chocolate. I could use {mi nelci le nu citka} and {mi nelci lo nu citka}. "I like the particular event of eating that I have in mind" and "there is/are some event(s) of eating that I like". None of them corresponds to the most common sense of "I like to eat" or "I enjoy eating". > 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. >>> >What is habituaol, etc. is not there >being events but my liking some of the events (there are always events of >any >sort you care to come up with). So you would take the quantifier outside of the scope of ta'e: da poi nu mi citka lo cakla zo'u mi ta'e nelci da For some event x of me eating chocolate: habitually I like x. No, that's not what you're saying. Where would you put the ta'e relative to {da poi nu}/{lo nu}? [On the quantifier of du'u:] >I am at a loss to see the advantage of {tu'o}, "a non-specific, elliptical >number" over {lo}, which amounts to an unspecified number. I take {tu'o} as a null, a non-number. The cmavo list has both definitions for it. We went over this already in the past. >The members of lo'i du'u la djil sipna are all the propositions that in >fact >amount to claims that Jill sleeps. Since they are intensional, the >identities that in fact apply -- such as that Jill is Jack's sister and >that >sleeping is non-traumatic temporary loss of consciousness -- do not reduce >them to a single item. So would you say, for example: le du'u le mensi be la djak cu sipna cu du'u la djil sipna I don't have a strong position on this, I'm just trying to figure it out. Doesn't this sort of kill the ability of du'u to provide intensional contexts? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com