[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] fancu
la pycyn cusku di'e
> Would not those that are
> equivalent always be rephraseable so as to fit the matrix?
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.
I would still like to see an example. How could {la djan djuno le
du'u makau broda} mean that {la djan djuno le du'u ko'a brode}
but not that {la djan djuno le du'u ko'a broda}? Could you give
an example?
<>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.
But it doesn't involve kau. Is {la djan djuno le du'u xukau do
co'u darxi le do speni} true when you have never beaten her and
John knows it? I think "Does John know whether you have stopped
beating your wife?" has the same failures as "Have you stopped
beating your wife?", so {na'i} cannot be part of the set of
answers covered by the indirect question. It will also be
answered with {na'i}, not with {go'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?)
Well, at least I agree with him that it is not the
knower/believer/opinion-holder that has to agree. It is no-one
within the text that uses the {le}-description. It is the speaker
and to some extent the listener.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp