From adam@pubcrawler.org Tue Jun 08 08:06:35 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal.seas.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.102]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BXiBI-0000ki-Hy for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:06:28 -0700 Received: from clarion.cec.wustl.edu (clarion.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.3]) by postal.seas.wustl.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i58F4wj22540 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:04:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by clarion.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i58F6NhW004599 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:06:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: clarion.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:06:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Principles In-Reply-To: <20040608142451.GS4386@ccil.org> Message-ID: References: <20040608121153.GJ4386@ccil.org> <20040608125218.38666.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> <20040608142451.GS4386@ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Status: No, -6.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Report: -6.4/5.0 ---- Start SpamAssassin results -6.40 points, 5 required; * 0.0 -- Message-Id indicates a non-spam MUA (Pine) * -0.0 -- Has a valid-looking References header * -0.4 -- Has a X-Authentication-Warning header * -0.4 -- Has a In-Reply-To header * -0.5 -- BODY: Contains what looks like an email attribution * -4.7 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 10 to 20% [score: 0.1839] * -0.4 -- BODY: Contains what looks like a quoted email text * 0.0 -- Reply with quoted text ---- End of SpamAssassin results X-archive-position: 8067 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, John Cowan wrote: > Jorge Llamb?as scripsit: > > > {soi} works for "and vice versa", but not for "or vice versa". > > It can't imagine anyone using "or vice versa" in a flat declarative > sentence like "Fido bit Rover or vice versa": to say that is to admit > an ignorance too profound for words. I've seen plenty of times when that ignorance is unavoidable. "John and Mary were bickering in the back seat of the car, as usual, and then John hit Mary, or vice versa, and soon there was pulling of hair and biting. So I turned the car right around and drove us all home." > I think that "or vice versa" > is far more likely when in the scope of a negation (as here) or > perhaps in a contrastive question ("Did Fido bite Rover, or [was it] > vice versa?"). > > I don't have the solution here, but I feel it has something to do > with negation scope. > > -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Dogs come when called. Cats take a message and get back to you.