From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 18 13:55:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 20:55:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 4348 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 20:55:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 20:55:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.79) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 20:55:09 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.156] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Sep 2002 20:55:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:55:08 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: I like chocolate Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002601c25f1b$1342dd20$f3c90950@ftiq2awxk6> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2344 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la lioNEL cusku di'e > 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, No, you can only omit the prenex if the term is in the main selbri: {da zo'u broda da} is indeed equivalent to {broda da}, but when it is within another bridi, {tu'a da} is {le du'u da co'e}, then the quantifier can only go to the prenex of that inner bridi: {broda le du'u da zo'u da co'e}. > and so I don't see how > {broda tu'a da} could claim a different thing, intensional contexts > or not. There are no special provisions for intensional contexts in Lojban. All these manipulations work the same independently of the meaning of {broda}. > Or maybe I fail to read an other discussion where you > agree on redefining this grammar point in intensional contexts. No, nothing here is redefined. The only thing that can be considered non-standard is my definition of {lo'e}, but since there is no clear official definition, it is hardly a redefinition. > Could you give an example with true selbris where the two have > to be different? lo skami zo'u mi nitcu tu'a sy There is a computer such that I need to do something about it (or something be done about it, or that it do something, or... but the point is that there is a computer in such a situation) mi nitcu tu'a lo skami I need that there be a computer such that I do something about, or it does something, etc. > 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? {ka ce'u broda} is equivalent to {du'u ce'u broda} There was a lot of discussion about this in the past. You can just read {du'u ce'u} as {ka} if you like. The difference between {du'u} and {ka} is that when no {ce'u} is made explicit, then {ka} indicates that there is at least one while {du'u} indicates that there is none. {tu'o} is the "quantifier" you use when you don't want a quantifier. > 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. Good luck! :) mu'o mi'e xorxes