From sentto-44114-3243-962028804-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Mon Jun 26 14:19:08 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 1182 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:19:07 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:19:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 1568 invoked by uid 40001); 26 Jun 2000 14:13:31 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 1565 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:13:31 -0000 Received: from ml.egroups.com (208.50.144.77) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:31 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3243-962028804-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2000 15:13:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 10734 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:13:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:24 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.7c.74fccee (4534) for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7c.74fccee.2688befe@aol.com> To: lojban@egroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:13:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] As Kunsunlundz said... [was RE: RECORD:containers] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So, after all the rhetoric against JCB for taking all predications without specific markers as merely potential, we end up in essentially the same place. I assume that our rhetoric for it is somewhat different (an unspecified tense -- nevermind that tense is not an obligatory category in lb -- may be located anywhere in the spatio-temporal-possible-imaginal world?). Well, at least this allows me to call a bottle a bottle even if it never does in fact have anything in it, because it is the sort of thing that in many worlds better run than this one would have something in it. What I can presumably not say of my empty bottle is {ta ca botpi}. This seems a little odd, since when I say {ta botpi} I am probably NOT thinking of them worlds over there and then but of the bottle I have in my hand here and now, that is the untensed form is contextually focused to the present. (This was at the heart of the rhetoric against JCB, as I recall, as well.) Notice, this does not help with xorxes' original problem, the scope of {noda}. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws. http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/4/_/17627/_/962028804/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com