X-Digest-Num: 330
Message-ID: <44114.330.1793.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:50:35 -0700 
From: trevor hill <thill@quark.com>
Subject: RE: "what i have for dinner"
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1793
Content-Length: 1086
Lines: 33

> 
> Kinin:
> > «People used to use {jei} for "whether", until it was 
> realized that if
> > le jei da klama is TRUE, then you are claiming that ro da 
> zo'u mi kucli
> > TRUE -- which is not what you want to claim at all. li'osa'a»


I believe that we are not defining terms specifically enough here, in regard
to references to values and the values themselves... I think i've brought
this point up before, in a more general context, but ....

I think that a predicate inside jei should in its entirety evaluate to "the
truth value of <predicate>", which is a predicate itself that need not be
"evaluated" so to speak.  

If we automatically evaluate everything we say, in this sense, we will be
speaking nonsense.  The meaning is in the _unevaluated_ bridi and sumti...
not in the final truth value...........  for instance:

If i say in english "I am a dog", this is false, but it's not the same thing
as saying "false"....

I've never studied linguistics formally, but i'm sure some of you can work
out from here how to solve this problem.... :)

co'o
mi'e trevyr.