Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:49:23 EDT

In a message dated 9/14/2002 6:32:48 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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}.