Subject: RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution?

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:08:28

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