From a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx Sat Dec 11 17:36:56 1999 X-Digest-Num: 308 Message-ID: <44114.308.1692.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 01:36:56 -0000 From: "And Rosta" From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" > > At 02:50 PM 12/11/99 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > >OK, but wondering decomposes into some kind of trying/wanting with > >respect to some kind of epistemic state. Whether or not we can find > >appropriate expressions for those in English, _X wonder P_ nonetheless > >means "X dweeble that X beeble that P", where "dweeble" is some kind > >of trying/wanting and "beeble" is some kind of epistemic state. > > I understand "I wonder who came" as "mi kucli le nu makau cmima > le'i klama" which I gues puts me in the set membership camp for at > least this aspect of indirect questions. Not really, becaue you've left the {kau} in, and we'd all agree that {da klama} = {da cmima le'i klame}. What we're looking for is a way to say it without {kau}, ideally a method that generalizes to cover all Q-{kau} uses. For example, "John knows who came" = "Ax x came iff John knows x came" (a nongeneralizing method, alas). > Note that le'i implies that set that I am curious > about quite intensional; I have no curiosity about the ants, flies, or > bacteria who might have come. > > lojbab (probably sticking his nose in where he cannot possibly > understand). The problem is more merely-difficult than arcane. BTW, I still haven't properly digested all earlier responses on this thread; I'm not just ignoring them. --And.