X-Digest-Num: 297
Message-ID: <44114.297.1617.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:42:20 -0700 (MST)
From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Subject: RE: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1617
Content-Length: 860
Lines: 33

> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >I think you're each half-right: it has to be *a* relevant answer. So
> >"John" would be an adequate answer even if he was not the only one to
> >have come.

.ie

> I'm not convinced. Suppose John and Paul were the only ones
> who came, and Mary knows that John came but not that Paul
> came. Now:
> 
> (1) Does Mary know who came?
>      Yes, she knows that John came.
> 
> (2) Does Mary know who came?
>      No, she only knows that John came, but not that Paul did too.
> 
> I find (2) acceptable and (1) suspect, but I suppose other people
> can make other judgements.

I would agree with you--in English. But I don't think the interpretation
of the Lojban should be rooted in debatable English semantics...

Accepting your way for the moment, how would the meaning implied with (1)
be rendered?

	co'omi'e xarmuj.