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 m0qTwDA-000023C; Fri, 29 Jul 94 20:59 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8434; Fri, 29 Jul 94 20:57:58 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8430; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 20:57:58 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5329; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 19:57:04 +0200 Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:57:02 -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-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199407261353.AA20266@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Jul 26, 94 09:41:56 am Content-Length: 942 Lines: 22 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 for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.