Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qSSv2-000023C; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:30 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9366; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:29:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9363; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 19:28:59 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7344; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 18:27:50 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 12:26:36 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: To be or not to be? Coffee or tea? X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199407250720.AA02744@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Jul 25, 94 03:20:11 am Content-Length: 838 Lines: 17 la lojbab. cusku di'e > But in the abstract, your question is valid. Each of those "lenu" clauses > has its own prenex, and if there were any quantifiable variables in or implied > in either lenu clause, then it is not automatically valid that you can > export an arbitrary logical connective past the prenex to the higher level > of your second example. I just don't see any hidden quantifiable variables > in your example. Prenexes and quantified variables aren't the problem; the problem is that abstractions, like quotations, are "referentially opaque". This is easier to see for quotation. The truth conditions for "He said 'Live or die!'" aren't the same as those for "He said 'Live!' or he said 'Die!'". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.