From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 19:30:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 15 Aug 2001 02:30:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 12022 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2001 02:30:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Aug 2001 02:30:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.157) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Aug 2001 02:30:41 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:30:41 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.32 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:30:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.32] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:30:41 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2001 02:30:41.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[473C4810:01C12532] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >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. I think {lo'e} and {le'e} are the intensional gadri. >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? Yes. All those that use both ce'u and makau, as in {frica le ka makau viska ce'u} vs {frica le ka ce'u viska makau}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp