From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jul 21 16:53:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 21 Jul 2001 23:52:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 99076 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2001 23:52:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2001 23:52:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.175) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2001 23:52:59 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 16:52:57 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.192 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:52:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.192] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: kargu mleca Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:52:57 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2001 23:52:57.0958 (UTC) FILETIME=[4480C060:01C11240] From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam cusku di'e >This seems like "abstraction raising" to me. "ko'a sisku lo ka broda >kei le klesi" means that ko'a is looking for something which has the >property of broda-ness in the set, which should be able to be >expressed by "ko'a sisku lo ckaji be lo ka broda kei le klesi" which >is just the same as "ko'a sisku lo broda le klesi". The problem the gi'uste wants to avoid is that in {ko'a sisku lo broda}, the quantifier of {lo broda} is at the bridi level, and this is not what we want to claim in some cases. I don't want to claim that there is something less expensive, such that I am looking for that very something. But turning the x2 of sisku into a property is a crazy way of solving this problem. Let's compare three predicates where this issue comes up: sisku, djica and nitcu. The gi'uste handles each of them differently: sisku gets the object turned into a property, djica gets an event, and nitcu apparently comes out unscathed. So, even when there is no quantification problem, we are supposed to say weird stuff like: mi nitcu do i mi djica le nu do co'e i mi sisku le ka du do I need you. I want you. I'm looking for you. instead of the expected {mi nitcu do i mi djica do i mi sisku do}. Much better in my opinion is to leave them with their original meaning and then say: mi nitcu lo'e kargu mleca I need something less expensive. mi djica lo'e kargu mleca I want something less expensive. mi sisku lo'e kargu mleca I'm looking for something less expensive. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp