From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 13 09:11:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 17:11:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 79585 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 17:11:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 17:11:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 17:11:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.188.34b6b95 (4012) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:10:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <188.34b6b95.299bf810@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:10:40 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Question, direct, indirect and spurious (was Lojban Tautologies ... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_188.34b6b95.299bf810_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13269 --part1_188.34b6b95.299bf810_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Added, as a result of the most recent &-x exchange: In its native place, {makau} is repesented (not quite accurately) as a broadest scope existential quantier; in the suggested usage it is represented (apparently accurately) as a broadest scope universal quantifier? Whence the change? Neither the assertion position (which it does not, in fact, have, being conditional) nor the lack of superordinate predicate explains the change. --part1_188.34b6b95.299bf810_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Added, as a result of the most recent &-x exchange:

In its native place, {makau} is repesented (not quite accurately) as a broadest scope existential quantier; in the suggested usage it is represented (apparently accurately) as a broadest scope universal quantifier? Whence the change? Neither the assertion position (which it does not, in fact, have, being conditional) nor the lack of superordinate predicate explains the change. --part1_188.34b6b95.299bf810_boundary--