Message-Id: <m0qpiSV-00005IC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 27 Sep 1994 19:49:16 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: general response on needing books
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Mon, 26 Sep 94 20:37:28 EDT.)
Content-Length: 1444
Lines: 37

Jorge:
> Exactly. But a quantification inside the du'u complement refers to
> that statement (the one that the speaker knows is true). A
> quantification outside refers to the statement that says that the
> speaker knows something is true.

Ok, you & John have got me to see it.

> > > I think that if nitcu et al. are changed to event-only, then xe'e
> > > won't be of much use at all either.
> >
> > I think xehe is still needed for "xehe PA" constructions: "I am
> > willing to read any three books", "any two people can sit on
> > the sofa". Can you do these without xehe?
>
> Yes, for the same reason you can do nitcu: they are inside abstractions.
>
>         mi djica le nu mi tcidu ci selcku
>         I am willing to read three books.
>
>         kakne le nu re prenu cu zutse le sfofa
>         Can that two people sit on the sofa.

I think that this is false only if there is no event of me reading
3 books that I consent to, and if there is no event of two people
sitting on the sofa. What I want is it to be false if before
you've finished selecting the three books & two people you
pick a book & it turns out that I don't consent to read it
or you pick a person and the event of them sitting on the
sofa isn't possible.
Given the form "I consent to an event such that there are
3 books and I read them", then you could offer me a book
& I could reject it without falsifying the statement. To
avoid this, we need "xehe".

----
And