> An interesting -- and, it now appears, permissible -- point of view. Well,
> almost. If its truth depends upon my point of view and so on, then he
can't
> attack the claim, as the book says, since it is selfly true. On the other
> hand, if the evidential function as intended (in Native American languages
> and Laadan) then he himself has asserted it and on weak evidence indeed
(his
> idea of someone else's opinion). The only way to make tyhe sentence
> pragmatically sound is to look at one interpretation for one part -- the
> statement is made and I object to it -- and another interpretation for the
> other part -- someone else made the statement so don't blame me. This is
> equivocation at best, and stupidity at worst. Or the other way round -- I
> never am clear whether it is worse to call someone an idiot or a cheat.
> Actually, I don't think either applies -- to xod. The book turns out
to be
> so screwed up on this issue -- which I remember as being pretty well
cleared
> up several times over the past years and certainly is in the logical
> literature -- that he can't really be blamed for not getting it right. The
> present set-up doesn't allow anyone to get it right, for each choice
made is
> wrong on some place in the chapter.
doi ro .i pe'i le si'o zo dai mapti le seltavla selcinmo cu traji le
kamselpilno .iseni'ibo lu do jinvi li'u smuni lu pe'idai