From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Sep 18 07:42:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 66107 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:10:44 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:43:03 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:42:34 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: #jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: #> Then this is where we part. 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. #Yes, different; but the first implies the second. And, under the present= =20 #system at least, the instant case, where {tu'a da} is a cover for {tu'o d= u'u=20 #ce'u co'e da}, it's going to get the implication the other way as well. Is {tu'a da} a cover for {tu'o du'u da zo'u ce'u co'e da}? That is the crux, and I think we all want the answer to be Yes. BTW, are you actually proposing locutions like {nelci tu'a lo cakla}, {nelci tu'o du'u ce'u co'e lo cakla}? To me, those don't mean the same thing as "I like chocolate". --And.