X-Digest-Num: 307
Message-ID: <44114.307.1684.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:10:36 EST
From: Pycyn@aol.com
Subject: Re: More about questions and the like (was:What I have for dinner...")
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1684
Content-Length: 1592
Lines: 27

Problem 1: Given "for x, if x went to the party, then John knows thatx went 
to the party" and that Paul went to the party, we might infer  "John knows 
that Paul went to the party."  This sentence is ambiguous and the most likely 
reading (it is usually said) may well be false. since John may never have 
heard of Paul as such and may have him under a totally wrong-headed 
description, so that we might never find out from John that Paul was there, 
even though he knows of the man who is in fact Paul - whoever John may think 
him to be -- that he  went to the party.  The set of answers solution for 
questions needs quite a bit of extra work work to be addapted to indirect 
questions (and propositional attitudes generally).  Like including mappings 
from the world to the belief worlds involved, for this one.  And several 
other things for the other ones.
Problem 2.  From "Pegasus was the winged horse captured by Bellerophon" being 
true, it is automatic to infer "There was a winged horse" and thence "Winged 
horses have existed."  But they haven't.  The role of xu'a or whatever is 
simply to prevent these inferences in the cases where context does not (and 
so should always be used, just in case).  It does not say which performative 
is involved, only that it is opaquifying and that the ordinary rules thus do 
not apply  -- in particular, names need not denote.  The alternatives -- in a 
logical language -- are to make obvious truths false or to allow truth value 
gaps or to deny the usual rules; none of these are impossible but all are 
unpleasant.
pc