From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 14 17:10:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 15 Sep 2002 00:10:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 53664 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2002 00:10:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2002 00:10:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.238) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2002 00:10:16 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:10:16 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.7 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:10:16 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:10:16 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2002 00:10:16.0948 (UTC) FILETIME=[45490B40:01C25C4C] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.7] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >Yes, lo sincrboa is picturable, but you want a picture of lo'e sincrboa, >which we can't drag out an look at and compare with the picture. You don't have to drag it out. All you need is to know what {sincrboa} means. >All we have >to go on in the generic case is the (weighted?) list of properties that >somehow (still haven't said how) characterize the members of lo'i sincrboa. Yes, an imaginary list which need not be made explicit. If I tell you from here, where you can't see me nor the boa, {mi viska lo sincrboa} you need to know the same list of properties in order to understand what I mean. If I tell you {mi viska lo'e sincrboa} you can conclude that either {mi viska lo sincrboa} or else I'm having visions, but you don't need to know anything else about boas than what you needed for the claim with {lo}. {lo'e sincrboa} provides a way to use the intension of lo'i sincrboa in a sumti slot directly. (Not to make a claim about the intension of lo'i sincrboa, that's what {le ka sincrboa} is for.) >I think that, in fact, barring the miraculous appearance of a better >explanation, {nelci le nu lo sfofa co'e} is exactly what {nelci lo'e sfofa} >means. In what does it differ. DON'T "in that it deals with generic sofas >not particular ones" since {le nu lo sfofa co'e} doesn't deal with any >particular sofa either -- that is what intensional contexts do best. I never said {le nu lo sfofa cu co'e} deals with particular sofas. I did say it deals with particular events. >I >suspect that {co'e} is something about lying on 'em or looking at 'em, just >as {nelci lo'e cakla} = {nelci le nu lo cakla co'e} is about eating 'em. That other claim may very well be true. But if it is possible to like a particular sofa without saying that it is doing something about it that I like, it should also possible to like sofas in general without saying that it is doing something about them that I like. >Nor >-- your other line -- that it can't be quantified over, since neither can >{tu'a lo ...} What is different? For me, liking sofas is different to liking an event. I never disputed that {tu'a} works as a way to get the quantifier out of the way, but it also changes the level of abstraction, from liking sofas to liking things that happen in/with/about/to sofas. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com