From rmcivor@xxxxxxxx.xxxx Thu Dec 2 07:46:45 1999 X-Digest-Num: 300 Message-ID: <44114.300.1630.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:46:45 -0500 From: "Robert A. McIvor" To say in E that > >1) John knows who came. > >is to say that > >2) John knows the identity of, i.e, another name for, everyone who came. > >and not merely that, as one of the lojbi put it, that > >3) For each x that came, John knows that x came. > >(2), logified, means that > >4) For every x such that x came there is a y such that John knows that x is >y. > >This implies that to "know the identity of someone x" is to be able to put >another designation to x. If so, then this goes into L very neatly as > >5) Raba ji pa kamla gui be goi la Djan ga djano supo ba bi be. > >Any problems with this? To make it easier, here's the back-trat: > >6) For every x that came there is a y such that John knows at least one >case of x being y. > >And this certainly doesn't mean that D knows who didn't come! > >Jelhaisto! > co'o mi'e bab >Hue Djim >