RE: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
> 
> la i,n cusku di'e
> 
> >lambda x: E(x)
> >
> >i.e. the function which assigns truth values to the expression 
> E(...) given 
> >any
> >value of the {kau}-tagged variable x.
> >
> >This implies you know the whole story - who came and who didn't come
> >(given the long-ago-snipped example).
> 
> I don't think you need to know who didn't come if
> you know who came. You could deduce it, but that's
> another story. The problem is that the predicate "know"
> is especially confusing to treat these issues. If we change
> to "John told me who came" it is more clear that he didn't
> necessarily tell me who didn't came.
> 
> Would it be correct to say that he told me the function?
> Or did he tell me what is the function, which is again
> substituting one indirect question with another?

Maybe "He caused me to know the function, by speaking" or
suchlike.

But in at least some cases the indirect question remains:

  When you start school depends on when you are born.

=
A.  ... depends on what the function 'when-you-are-born' is

& not =

B.  ... depends on the function 'when-you-are-born' 

However, maybe if you somehow quantify over worlds the A, version
would work, somehow. But my brain's gone to sleep. Enough.