Message-Id: <199601180053.CAA22506@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 17 Jan 1996 19:51:33 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      tech:opaque
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1266
Lines: 26

> &: assuming that variables range over individuals of every world, in
> which case {pixra lo kae gerku} - "picture of what in some world or other
> is a dog" (with {kae} understood nonepistemically/nonsubjectively) - will
> do the job.
> pc: Only if the picture of it is of it in a world where it is a dog. If I
> show you a picture of a cat, it may well be a picture of what in some
> world or other is a dog, but it is a picture of it in a world in which
> it is a cat.  So, still not quite, even if variables (of which there are
> not obviously any in this locution, by the way) range over all the
> individual there might be.
> i,n: I suggest that it is "really" a picture of something-to-do-with-brodas
> (and I would like to be much more specific than that, but I don't have
> all the answers :-).

It sounds like Iain is right. It's a picture of something being a dog.
I'm not sure where that gets us. What would x2 of pixra be then?
Syntactically, a le/lo nu, presumably. But how would it be defined?

John:
> Perhaps what I have been trying to say to And is that "le nu...kei cu
> ka'e fasnu" is true, but "le nu...kei cu ca'a fasnu" can be false.

That's right, except that I'm no longer sure that even {fasnu} is the
appropriate predicate.

coo, mie And