From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 07 01:32:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 08:32:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 17696 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 08:32:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 08:32:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 08:32:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.61.132b8923 (4012) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 04:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <61.132b8923.28c9e033@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 04:32:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Siver threads among the mold To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_61.132b8923.28c9e033_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10525 --part1_61.132b8923.28c9e033_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/6/2001 7:58:07 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > I still don't see what the problem is. If you're not sure whether > clause C is relative or interrogative, try replacing it with one, C', that > has analogous meaning but a form that is unambiguous. That'll show you > whether C is relative or interrogative. > > AFAICS, this is simply not a problem in the analysis of English, except > for beginners, and I don't see any evidence of relative/interrogative > ambiguities having contaminated our attempts to deal with Q-kau. > Circular test. If we knew for sure that some version was unambiguously one or the other and analogous to the meaning of the first, then we wouldn't need the test; we could do with however we decided the tester phrase. --part1_61.132b8923.28c9e033_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/6/2001 7:58:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


I still don't see what the problem is. If you're not sure whether
clause C is relative or interrogative, try replacing it with one, C', that
has analogous meaning but a form that is unambiguous. That'll show you
whether C is relative or interrogative.

AFAICS, this is simply not a problem in the analysis of English, except
for beginners, and I don't see any evidence of relative/interrogative
ambiguities having contaminated our attempts to deal with Q-kau.

Circular test.  If we knew for sure that some version was unambiguously one
or the other and analogous to the meaning of the first, then we wouldn't need
the test; we could do with however we decided the tester phrase.   --part1_61.132b8923.28c9e033_boundary--