From nessus@free.fr Wed Sep 18 06:43:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 13:43:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 52446 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 13:43:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 13:43:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.25) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 13:43:20 -0000 Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760C25007EF08D for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:43:19 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (80.9.201.243) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D801208003BD35B for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:43:19 +0200 Message-ID: <002601c25f1b$1342dd20$f3c90950@ftiq2awxk6> To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:54:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "Lionel Vidal" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf la xorxes cusku di'e> > To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes > a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification > of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how > you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts > if you don't think so. I am lost here: I thought the grammar said clearly that in {da zo'u broda tu'a da} the {da zo'u} could be freely omitted with no change in semantic, and so I don't see how {broda tu'a da} could claim a different thing, intensional contexts or not. Or maybe I fail to read an other discussion where you agree on redefining this grammar point in intensional contexts. Could you give an example with true selbris where the two have to be different? > We can now give a precise definition of {broda} in terms > of {kairbroda}: > ko'a broda ko'e = ko'a kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u du ko'e > ko'a is broda to ko'e = ko'a is broda to something that > has the property of being ko'e I don't understand your use of {tu'o} here. Is that what makes {du'u ce'u du k'oe} a true property? Or to say it differently, how do you get a property out of a predication abstraction? Sorry if my questions sound too basic: I am just trying to follow the discussion and understand the different point of views, being well aware that my lojban current understanding may be inapropriate. mu'omi'e lioNEL