From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 16 13:53:08 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 16 Aug 2001 20:53:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 64009 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 20:53:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2001 20:53:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Aug 2001 20:53:08 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.89.16]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010816205306.NDET6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:53:06 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution?
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:52:13 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGEFIEJAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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: <F157THfyQgeDKvPEkGh00007618@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Jorge:
> 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.

Before we consider whether {mi djuno lo'e/le'e klama} is a feasible
alternative to Q-kau, we need to establish that {lo'e cinfo
cu xabji lo friko} or, to be clearer, {lo'e square has 4 sides},
are nonsensical, because obviously the "known by me" part has
to be outside the intension.

> >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}.

This is a case of "how then would we say it", rather than of gross
illogicalities or competing interpretations.

--And.