From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 16 13:53:08 2001 Return-Path: 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 ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:53:06 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:52:13 +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 > > >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.