From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 16 18:08:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 17 Aug 2001 01:08:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 69795 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 01:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Aug 2001 01:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.148) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 01:08:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:08:29 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.153 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:08:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.153] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:08:28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2001 01:08:29.0251 (UTC) FILETIME=[201AB130:01C126B9] 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. > >Before we consider whether {mi djuno lo'e/le'e klama} is a feasible >alternative to Q-kau, I didn't mean that. By intensional I meant that no extensional claim is made. So {lo'e broda} refers to the archetype broda, or the representative of the class of broda but without any reference to any member of the class. But it could never be a {se djuno}, as it is not a fact. I think "who goes", "where he goes", "how he goes", etc are facts, not goers, destinations, means, etc. Maybe the focus is the wh-word but the head is "goes". >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. Maybe I don't understand what intension is. {lo'e cinfo cu xabju lo friko} is perfectly fine for me. It would mean something like "Africa has lions". I see the effect of {lo'e broda} as similar to the effect of {zi'o} (the default quantifier of {lo'e} has to be {tu'o}) with respect to the quantified sumti. {lo'e} reduces the number of arguments of the selbri, but instead of sending one place to limbo like zi'o does, it enriches the meaning of the selbri. So {lo'e cinfo cu xabju ko'a} means ko'a is lion-inhabited. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp