Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA15359 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:29:10 -0400 Message-Id: <199409132229.AA15359@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1209; Tue, 13 Sep 94 18:30:23 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6148; Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:29:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 16:28:19 -0600 Reply-To: Randall Holmes Sender: Lojban list From: Randall Holmes Subject: Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati X-To: cbogart@CSN.ORG X-Cc: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@idbsu.idbsu.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Sep 13 18:29:16 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu This seems only to go to you via my reply function, and I don't know how to e-mail the whole list; I'll try to do this in the cc: line at the end of this message. The same problem arises in TLI Loglan; the paradigmatic example which caused a lot of discussion was "I am waiting for a taxi". The difficulty seems to be that the logical form of the sentence is an illusion; there is no box referred to in "I need a box", and there is no taxi referred to in "I am waiting for a taxi" (there need not even exist any boxes or taxis meeting your requirements for the statement to be true). The context is "referentially opaque", in Quine's terminology, and the object of the sentence, if it has one, is some kind of "intensional" object (something on the order of a concept of a box or taxi). --Randall Holmes ("logician in residence", TLI)