Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:38:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712030138.UAA13083@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: GLI Re: Indirect questions X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1337 Lines: 35 And: >> But "She knew whether he was hungry" means something if he was >> hungry and something else if he wasn't. > >I certainly don't think that. Are you sure you really do? In the same sense that "I am hungry" means something if I say it and something else if you do. >In truth-conditional terms, "She knew whether he was hungry" >is true iff either he's hungry and she believes he's hungry >or he's not hungry and she believes he's not hungry. Yes, of course I agree. That's what the proposition means. But the text-type "she knew whether he was hungry" can relate to the proposition "she knew that he was hungry" in a given context, just as the text type "I am hungry" can relate to the proposition "Jorge is hungry" in a given context. >> Our methods of expansion seem not to work for "She wondered >> whether he was hungry". What's going on here? >"She desires that for every x, x a se jetlai of le du`u >he was hungry, she knows that x is a se jetlai of le du`u >he was hungry." Right, you are interpreting "wonder" as "want to know". But then, is {kucli da} = {djica le nu/du'u djuno da}? Scope problems again. Then we don't have an automatic way of expanding {broda le du'u xukau brode}, because it will depend on the meaning of {broda}. The expansion for {djuno} is different than the one for {kucli}. co'o mi'e xorxes