From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Oct 03 07:21:55 2001
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 14:21:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 25174 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 14:21:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 14:21:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.52)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 14:21:54 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:21:54 -0700
Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Wed, 03 Oct 2001 14:21:54 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2]
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 14:21:54 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F5281EYtN3Isam5R4r30000223a@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2001 14:21:54.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[C05916A0:01C14C16]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11308


la pycyn cusku di'e

>{la djan jinvi [fe] le du'u makau mamta la bil}, not {la djan jinvi FI le
>du'u makau mamta la bil}  The phrase is his actual opinion, just as it is 
>his
>actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrase with the
>same referent in each case.

I was talking about {fe} as well.

If {la djan jinvi le du'u la meris mamta la bil}, then
{la djan jinvi le du'u makau mamta la bil}. Both are independent
of whether or not {la meris mamta la bil} is true.

If John has the opinion that Mary is Bill's mother, then
John has an opinion as to who Bill's mother is.

>So, if it is always right in the one case, it is
>in the other also.  This is not a plausible position.

If what is always right?

><.  The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the
> >way) was not arrived at without looking at  these kinds of problems but 
>was
> >rather what people were forced to to deal with them.
>
>Sorry, I don't understand how this affects the ce'u-makau case.>
>
>Ignoration elenchi?  Just what have we been arguing about?  Why the
>explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issue?

I'm not saying it's not dealing with the issue. I'm saying I don't
understand how it affects it, how it gives a contradiction.

><It sounds wrong to me. I keep getting the feeling that it's the
>wrong type. I just can't treat {le broda be ce'u} as an object
>that is nothing like a broda.>
>
>Well, {le du'u ce'u broda} is an object that is nothing like a proposition.

I thought you were ok with the notion that propositions were
0-argument properties. But I don't mind using {ka} instead
of {du'u} if you prefer.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp