[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] tautologies



In a message dated 2/13/2002 7:27:50 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


I think this is a problematic proposal, but it's going to look like nonsense
to you if you don't realize it's a novel rule of interpretation.


I'm painfully aware it is a novel rule of interpretation.  But it is offered as flowing naturally from given rules and as being needed.  My point is that neither of these claims is true in any obvious sense or in any that xorxes (and your today remarks) has succeeded in presenting.