In a message dated 10/6/2001 6:50:56 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
Could you give an exampleof this? Would not those that are Yeah, but they might not be the one he knows, thinks of, etc. etc. The intensional problem that extension-claim theory has. Almost every answer actually has an extension-claim equivalent, which somebody might think of, so set-of answers covers that case, but is not restricted to it. We are ready for a wide range of possibilities in each case, not just the one. <{noda >kalma >le zarci}, for example, But I have always insisted that this answer _is_ included. It is always the one that makes the extension analysis fail, because it is not part of the extension of {le ka ce'u klama le zarci}.> Well, surely knowing that the empty set is the extension of {le ka ce'uklama le zarci} would count -- except for the intension problem. That claim should be in the set of answers. <>and -- perhaps related to that last bit -- {na'i}, That one I would probably exclude. Could you give an example?> Classics: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" when you either don't have a wife or have never beaten her. "How do you know the distance tothe moon?" when you don't know it. And so on. <I don't see how this follows from the purported omissions. I think I tend to rely on the specificity of {le} to select the acceptable answers, but in any case I am not at all sure that my analysis is complete.> Very often "Who" questions have a presupposition that someone does whatever. When the answer is {noda broda}, it is also -- and more forcefully -- {na'i}. When dealing with And, it turns out better not to use {le}, since he tends to make much of its idiosyncrasies -- which can be useful, but can also get you into trouble (who all has to agree on what is referred to and how detailed must that agreement be?) <an array of propositional >functions, >rather than taking the whole as a function to indirect questions. I now think it has to be the other way around. {makau} is a dependent variable and {ce'u} the independent one, in a manner of speaking.> For the {dunli} -{frica} cases, it works nicely the way you had it before. The new way is trickier on those cases, though it still comes down to the same sentence eventually. I flipflop back and forth and the Logic texts have no guidelines at all. |