From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 19 09:24:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 16:24:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 72225 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 16:24:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 16:24:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.143) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 16:24:02 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:24:01 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:24:01 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Could this be it? (was: I like chocolate) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2002 16:24:01.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6D3A9B0:01C25FF8] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >I go along with you about {lo'e broda} not entailing >{da broda}. If {lo'i broda cu no mei}, then no da broda but >we can still legitimately talk about lo'e broda. Agreed. >But we may disagree about the other bit. I see no difference between >{lo'e broda cu klama} and {la tom klama}. Both, I think, entail >{da klama}, yet both may lack an extension in a given world. For me, names must have a referent in the corresponding world. Also, I could not use a name to get the same sense of {lo'e broda}. I can say {zo tom cmene lo'e pavyseljirna}, which says that "Tom" is a name of unicorns, but it does not mean that using the name {la tom} will have the same effect as using the generic NP {lo'e pavyseljirna} in another sentence. >If we >say "lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi", I don't see why that shouldn't >entail "da blabi", within the worlds in which {lo'e pavyseljirna >cu blabi} or {la tom cu blabi} (where la tom is a or the unicorn) >is true. {la tom cu blabi} does entail {da blabi}, no argument about that, and of course in worlds with unicorns one could be called Tom. In words with no unicorns, there can't be a unicorn called Tom, obviously, but {lo'e pavyseljirna cu blabi} can still be true. Indeed in those worlds {lo'e pavyseljirna cu pavyseljirna} is true, "unicorns are unicorns", and {da pavyseljirna} is false. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com