Re: [lojban] Re: fancu

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> But this may be a real usage issue -- assuming there are no theoretical
> aftereffects (I don't think that risinging presuppositions in this case 
> need
> to force them in others where they clearly don't apply, e.g., in "The claim
> that I have stopped beating my wife is bogus."

I think that could be ambiguous. It may have the meaning you intend,
but it can also be read as "it is bogus that I have stopped beating
my wife", which to me means that I haven't stopped.

> Maybe {co'u ta'e darxi}?>
>
> Better, though "hit" is not the same as "beat" either.

What would be the differences? What do you suggest for "beat"?
(In Spanish I would use "golpear" for both.)

> <>The fact that a question does not meet its presuppositions does not make 
> it
> >less of a question, it merely makes it one that has a peculiar correct
> >answer.
>
> One that has no correct logical answer, in my view. Correct
> illocutionary answers it has aplenty, I agree.>
>
> One of the reasons I prefer illocutionary answers. It is the insistence on
> logical answers that gives these kinds of questions their force and they
> should be stripped of it.

Why should they be stripped of their force? Is this a moral issue,
or is there a logical basis for the stripping?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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