Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate)

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:32:22 +0000

la and cusku di'e

> > So, if we understand the kair- predicates, we understand {lo'e}.
>
>I don't think a general understanding of the kair- predicates is
>there to be had.

I don't think it's that difficult. In fact we could say that every
predicate descends from one of these protopredicates that are only
relationships between properties. So for example {dunda} is derived
from a proto-dunda meaning "something with property x1 gives something
with property x2 to something with property x3". This predicate still
allows to make quantified claims, by explicitly quantifying out of
identity properties. If no external quantification is used the
claim is not about any instance of anything, just an abstract meaning:

le ka prenu cu ***dunda le ka dacti kei le ka prenu
"People giving things to people."

Just a meaning not (necessarily) applied to any situation,
though of course applicable to one if no further precision is
required. The claim is equivalent to:

lo'e prenu cu dunda lo'e dacti lo'e prenu

this time using standard {dunda}.

>I prefer the definition of {lo'e} as the gadri appropriate to
>singleton categories. When applied to a category ordinarily
>conceptualized as nonsingleton, it forces an appropriate
>reconceptualization. (Technically called "coercion" in cognitive
>linguistics.)

I don't have a problem with that, as long as those singleton
categories can't instantiate {da}, which is extensional par
excellence. In other words {lo'e broda cu brode} should not
entail {lo broda cu brode}, but also not even {da brode}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx