From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 14 18:34:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 15 Aug 2001 01:34:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 24445 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2001 01:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Aug 2001 01:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Aug 2001 01:34:33 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.56]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010815013431.LNTS710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:34:31 +0100 To: "Jorge Llambias" , Subject: RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:33:38 +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) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >mi djuno lo'i klama = "I know who goes" > > > >[= For every property of lo'i klama I know that it is > >a property of lo'i klama --?] > > If John, Paul and Mary are the ones who go, are you prepared > to claim: > > mi djuno la djan ce la pol ce la meris > I know the set {John, Paul, Mary}. > > I am not prepared to claim that. OK. But if we had some way to talk about intensional categories (such that the class of goers is not the same thing as {J, P, M}), then our problem would be solved. How about -- I'm just floating this to see how it fares -- replacing {ma kau} with {ce'u}? Does this result in gross illogicalities, or in sentences which would then have competing interpretations? --And.