From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 15 10:49:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 15 Sep 2002 17:49:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 60177 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2002 17:49:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2002 17:49:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2002 17:49:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.48.119464d8 (4230) for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <48.119464d8.2ab62223@aol.com> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:49:23 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_48.119464d8.2ab62223_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_48.119464d8.2ab62223_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/14/2002 6:32:48 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << >I don't see that this would generalize to liking chocolate, but >I guess I'm wondering whether {lo'e} is being used as a panacea >to disparate or at least separately soluble problems. They are separately solvable, English doesn't deal with all of them in the same way: sometimes it uses "a", sometimes "the", sometimes the plural. Maybe we should approach this from a different perspective. Given {lo'e broda} as a way to insert the intension of {lo'i broda} into a selbri place, what is the resulting meaning? This is not the same as saying that the intension becomes the argument, since I don't want to make a claim about the intension, le ka ce'u broda. >> One of the problems in this one is figuring out where which kind of mistake is made: the sense of {lo'i broda}, "being a set whose members are exactly the broda" doesn't (I hope!) play any role here at all. I suppose yet once again this is (by two leaps this time), the sense of {broda}. Intensions can't go in sumti places because intensions are not words in any language. And we have already removed the possibility that what goes into the sumti place is an expression referring to that intension -- and do so again (as cofusedly) in the next sentence. We are left with what I take to be true and also what xorxes is trying to say regardless of how often he rejects it: {lo'e broda} for xorxes is like {lo'e broda} in Lojban in that it signals a complex hypothetical claim that relies on le du'u ce'u broda and says something about the members of lo'i broda. In xorxes' case (barring the not yet forthcoming better story) it says what the essential features are, in Lojban what the typical features are. The exact form of the hypothetical here hidden varies with the role {lo'e broda} plays in the sentence and what the other components of the sentence are -- working it ouit in each case is, so far, an art rather than a cience, but an art that we generally are pretty good at (though not, perhaps, at formulating our analyses). << >As for the example above, what's wrong with > > i fa'a le sirji crane na ku ka'e ku da klama lo'e darno mutce >= i fa'a le sirji crane da na ka'e klama lo'e darno mutce >= i fa'a le sirji crane no mu'ei ku da klama lo'e darno mutce >= i fa'a le sirji crane da no mu'ei klama lo'e darno mutce > >? It has the quantifier of {da} within the scope of the negation, so that I can't continue talking about the same "one" in the next sentence >> Well, CLL waffles on that, so, if you did it, no one would complain much, and you can always use {ice} rather than just {i}. You can also use anaphora (if it is possible to use Lojban anaphora reliably): {le go'i} or {ra} or ...Or you can tag even {da} with {goi}. --part1_48.119464d8.2ab62223_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/14/2002 6:32:48 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
>I don't see that this would generalize to liking chocolate, but
>I guess I'm wondering whether {lo'e} is being used as a panacea
>to disparate or at least separately soluble problems.

They are separately solvable, English doesn't deal with all
of them in the same way: sometimes it uses "a", sometimes
"the", sometimes the plural.

Maybe we should approach this from a different perspective.
Given {lo'e broda} as a way to insert the intension of {lo'i
broda} into a selbri place, what is the resulting meaning?
This is not the same as saying that the intension becomes
the argument, since I don't want to make a claim about the
intension, le ka ce'u broda.
>>
One of the problems in this one is figuring out where which kind of mistake is made:
the sense of {lo'i broda}, "being a set  whose members are exactly the broda" doesn't (I hope!) play any role here at all.  I suppose yet once again this is (by two leaps this time), the sense of {broda}.  Intensions can't go in sumti places because intensions are not words in any language.  And we have already removed the possibility that what goes into the sumti place is an expression referring to that intension -- and do so again (as cofusedly) in the next sentence.
We are left with what I take to be true and also what xorxes is trying to say regardless of how often he rejects it: {lo'e broda} for xorxes is like {lo'e broda} in Lojban in that it signals a complex hypothetical claim that relies on le du'u ce'u broda and says something about the members of lo'i broda.  In xorxes' case (barring the not yet forthcoming better story) it says what the essential features are, in Lojban what the typical features are.  The exact form of the hypothetical here hidden varies with the role {lo'e broda} plays in the sentence and what the other components of the sentence are -- working it ouit in each case is, so far, an art rather than a cience, but an art that we generally are pretty good at (though not, perhaps, at formulating our analyses).

<<

>As for the example above, what's wrong with
>
>     i fa'a le sirji crane na ku ka'e ku da klama lo'e darno mutce
>=   i fa'a le sirji crane da na ka'e klama lo'e darno mutce
>=   i fa'a le sirji crane no mu'ei ku da klama lo'e darno mutce
>=   i fa'a le sirji crane da no mu'ei klama lo'e darno mutce
>
>?

It has the quantifier of {da} within the scope of the negation,
so that I can't continue talking about the same "one" in the
next sentence
>>
Well, CLL waffles on that, so, if you did it, no one would complain much, and you can always use {ice} rather than just {i}.  You can also use anaphora (if it is possible to use Lojban anaphora reliably): {le go'i} or {ra} or ...Or you can tag even {da} with {goi}. 






--part1_48.119464d8.2ab62223_boundary--