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 m0qpkPl-00005IC; Tue, 27 Sep 94 23:50 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5591; Tue, 27 Sep 94 23:50:32 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5588; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 23:50:31 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2149; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 22:47:37 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 20:11:20 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: any X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 27 Sep 94 11:11:59 O.) Content-Length: 709 Lines: 16 Veijo: > If I go out, kill 10 animals of the 50 and come to tell you about > my deed, then until you go out and identify the animals (if you > have some need for the identification) I can have killed any > single one of them up to the count of 10. This is the bit I don't understand. Suppose there are three animals, Alfie, Boris and Candy, and you kill Alfie. Thereafter you have killed Alfie, but I cannot see how (i) it is true that you can have killed any single one of them (since you can't have killed Boris or Candy), and (ii) why my subsequent identification of the animals has any effect on which was the one you so casually slaughtered for the sake of explaining semantics to us. ---- And