From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Sep 18 17:45:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 00:45:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 57120 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 00:45:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 00:45:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 00:45:36 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-251.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.251]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C29BC3EBC8 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:45:34 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] lo'e, le'e, tu'o Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:47:13 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >It seems to me that what is essentially > >going on in these exx -- and also generally with generic > >reference -- is that a category is being conceptualized as > >a single individual ("myopic singularization"). E.g. it is > >quite easy to think of Chocolate as a single individual, > >and "I like chocolate" means the same as "I like Chocolate". > > Yes, definitely. I think "myopic sigularization" is a very > good description of what goes on. If you start from the point > of view of seeing the category in its extension, then {lo'e} > collapses the extension into one individual. If you start from > the intension, then {lo'e} simply blocks the move to the > extension. I don't think this conflicts with the description > in terms of the kairbroda predicates. Great! > >So on this basis I understand your use of {lo'e} and agree > >with it. The question that remains in my mind is whether > >there is a difference between {lo'e broda} and {tu'o broda}. > > I can't see any difference. Nor me. I guess that lo'e/le'e explicitly say "myopic singularization is going on here", whereas tu'o says "there's no quantification going on here, & it's up to you to infer why (i.e. because it would be redundant)". > >BTW, this automatically gives us a useful meaning for > >{le'e} -- it would mean {(ro) le pa}. > > Don't you mean {tu'o le tu'o}? Outer quantifier could just as well be tu'o, yes, as per my above remarks. The inner one, though, is the cardinality specifier, and I'm not sure what tu'o would mean as a cardinality specification. --And.