From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199407291757.AA29926@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: To be or not to be? Coffee or tea?
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:57:02 -0400 (ADT)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199407261353.AA20266@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Jul 26, 94 09:41:56 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:        919
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jul 29 13:57:12 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> la lojbab cusku di'e
> 
> > I vaguely suspect that this argument is along the lines of the old
> > "John seeks a bicycle or a fish", where the question of intensionality
> > comes into play.  Cowan wrote at length on that issue a long time ago and
> > I think we have it covered.
> 
> Where could I find that? (John's writing, not a bicycle or a fish :)

You can't, for the very good reason that what I wrote went to sci.lang, and
further more was very bogus.  One Fine Day I will rewrite this stuff.
Suffice it to say that I >don't< think we have the semantics of "sisku"
covered at all, and after reading the relevant passage in Montague (courtesy
Colin, I think), it's very clear that they are very complicated semantics.

[problem with ".a" deleted -- I'll cover this in another post, I hope.]

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.