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 m0qpQqx-000024C; Tue, 27 Sep 94 02:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2384; Tue, 27 Sep 94 02:57:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2380; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 02:57:17 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4787; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 01:54:18 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 17:21:54 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: TECH: Transparence / Opaqueness X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 645 Lines: 13 >Imperatives by definition are neither true nor false in Lojban. That >means: make {do dunda ci plise mi} true. Since the distinction between >opaque and transparent rests on how the truth value of the statement >is determined, no such distinction is possible for imperatives. Is that really true? Aren't both interpretations possible of "ko cpacu le tanxe"? It could mean "go get me a box (any box)" or "go get me a box (whose location I'm about to reveal...)" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~