In a message dated 10/11/2001 6:02:42 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes:
No idea if it really is relevant, but a debate from 1990 is a REALLY old one. Yes, and so are the answers. Certainly not acceptable today (I hope): 8 versions of "John is looking for a bicycle or a fish" split on 1) whether the thinks are known to exist, 2) whether John knows/cares which he islooking for 3) whether the speaker knows which he is looking for <1. There are a bike and a fish, and John is trying to find one of these (he doesn't care which one). la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e .a lo finpe The-one-called John seeks an-existing bicycle (lit., two-wheel-vehicle)or an-existing fish. > Well, {lo} doesn't guarantee it is existing, only that it really is a fish (if anything) {da poi relxi'uma'e de poi finpe zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da a de} (note, this buried connective cannot be raised). <2. There are a bike and a fish, and John is trying to find one of these (but I don't know which of the two he's actually looking for). la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e bu'a sisku lo finpe> The-one-called John (seeks an-existing bicycle) or (seeks an-existing fish). > Again, the actual existence can only be handled outside the the intensional context: <3. There is a bike, and John is trying to find either this bike or a (possibly non-existent) fish (he doesn't care...) la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e .a le finpe The-one-called John seeks an-existing bicycle or the-thing-I-describe-as-a fish (which may or may not be a fish, or even exist). > da poi relxi'uma'e zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da a lo finpe 4. There is a bike, and John is trying to find either this bike or somefish (but I don't know...). la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e bu'a sisku le finpe The-one-called John (seeks an-existing bicycle) or (seeks the-thing-I-describe-as-a-fish (which may or may not be a fish, or even exist)). > da poi relxi'uma'e zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da gi'e sisku lo finpe (there may be a shorter way for this, but I am not sure about the rules here.) <5. & 6. Similar to 3. & 4., but with the roles of "bike" and "fish" interchanged. la djan.cu sisku le relxi'uma'e .a lo finpe la djan. cu sisku le rexi'uma'e bu'a siske lo finpe > da poi finpe zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da a lo relxi'uma'e da poi finpe zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da gi'e sisku tu'a lo relxi'uma'e <7. John is looking for a (possibly non-existent) bike or a (possibly non-existent) fish, and will be satisfied when he has found either one. la djan. cu sisku le relxi'uma'e .onai le finpe The-one-called John seeks what-I-describe-as-a bicycle exclusive-or what-I-describe-as a fish. > I'm not sure why the exclusive "or" suddenly. I ignore: la djan sisku tu'a lo relxi'uma'e a lo finpe. <8. John is looking for a bike or a fish, both possibly non-existent, but I don't know which one he's looking for. la djan. cu sisku le relxi'uma'e bu'onai sisku le finpe The-one-called John (seeks what-I-describe-as-a bicycle) exclusive-or(seeks what-I-describe-as-a fish).> la djan sisku tu'a lo relxi'uma'e gi'a finpe (dubious, better stick to sisku tu'a lo relxi'uma'e gi'a sisku lo finpe). |