From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 31 13:42:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 20:42:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 55545 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 20:41:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 20:41:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 20:41:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.126.3ee22a3 (18255) for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <126.3ee22a3.28c15073@aol.com> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:41:23 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_126.3ee22a3.28c15073_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10350 --part1_126.3ee22a3.28c15073_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/31/2001 1:08:23 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > If you performed the kind of "evaluation" people are suggesting for {jei} all > the time, then saying {la spat. gerku} would be instantly replaced by "true" > and communicate nothing. > Good evidence that *that* evaluation is not the right one, though how it arises from {la spat. gerku}, which does not contain (jei}, is a little obscure. Assuming that Spot is a dog, the truth value of {la spat. gerku} is indeed True, but True isn't a sentence or even a proposition, so it could not replace the sentence. Sounds like at least use-mention confusion, if not something more complex. --part1_126.3ee22a3.28c15073_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/31/2001 1:08:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


If you performed the kind of "evaluation" people are suggesting for {jei} all
the time, then saying {la spat. gerku} would be instantly replaced by "true"
and communicate nothing.


Good evidence that *that* evaluation is not the right one, though how it
arises from {la spat. gerku}, which does not contain (jei}, is a little
obscure.  Assuming that Spot is a dog, the truth value of {la spat. gerku} is
indeed True, but True isn't a sentence or even a proposition, so it could not
replace the sentence. Sounds like at least use-mention confusion, if not
something more complex. --part1_126.3ee22a3.28c15073_boundary--