From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 18 17:32:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 00:32:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12632 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 00:32:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 00:32:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.144) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 00:32:23 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:32:23 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.27 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:32:22 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:32:22 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2002 00:32:23.0242 (UTC) FILETIME=[057872A0:01C25F74] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.27] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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