From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 29 12:40:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 19:40:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 88735 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 19:40:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 19:40:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 19:40:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.44.26d8dd4c (4320) for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:40:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44.26d8dd4c.2ac8b127@aol.com> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:40:23 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: On what there isn't To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_44.26d8dd4c.2ac8b127_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_44.26d8dd4c.2ac8b127_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/2002 7:21:26 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > I was just pointing out the parallels with my use of {lo'e}. > I didn't use the name because unfortunetely Lojban doesn't > treat names as predicates, but I could do it with {me}: > > i la xolmyz cu se nolgau lo'e me la viktorias > i ku'i la viktorias na nolgau la xolmyz > >> I wish that made {lo'e} a little clearer, but I still don't see why the claimed assymetry holds in the {lo'e} case (and am open to other treatments in the case of nonexistents). Nor is the next analogy any clearer: << >In particular, the Victoria we >are talking about is the familiar one, not one of her surrogates in a book >or >elsewhere; Correct. That's why I can only bring up the property of being her (which is what lo'e does, but using that property, not referring to that property), and not herself. >> The talk about using a property rather than referring to it has not gotten clearer over the weeks and this does not help -- why can't I refer to Victoria rather than to the property of being Victoria (and why would I want to refer to the latter)? --part1_44.26d8dd4c.2ac8b127_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/2002 7:21:26 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

I was just pointing out the parallels with my use of {lo'e}.
I didn't use the name because unfortunetely Lojban doesn't
treat names as predicates, but I could do it with {me}:

i la xolmyz cu se nolgau lo'e me la viktorias
i ku'i la viktorias na nolgau la xolmyz

>>
I wish that made {lo'e} a little clearer, but I still don't see why the claimed assymetry holds in the {lo'e} case (and am open to other treatments in the case of nonexistents). Nor is the next analogy any clearer:
<<
>In particular, the Victoria we
>are talking about is the familiar one, not one of her surrogates in a book
>or
>elsewhere;

Correct. That's why I can only bring up the property of being her
(which is what lo'e does, but using that property, not referring
to that property), and not herself.
>>
The talk about using a property rather than referring to it has not gotten clearer over the weeks and this does not help -- why can't I refer to Victoria rather than to the property of being Victoria (and why would I want to refer to the latter)?
--part1_44.26d8dd4c.2ac8b127_boundary--