Re: [lojban] RE:su'u

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> John:
> #5a   la djan. -believes le du'u da poi selcme zo .ortkut. cu -spy
> #i.e. John believes that what is named "Ortcutt" is a spy
> #i.e. reference de dicto
> #
> #5b   da poi selcme zo .ortkut. zo'u la djan -believes le du'u da -spy
> #i.e. there is something named "Ortcutt" that John believes to be a spy
> #i.e. reference de re
> #
> #This presumes that John & the speaker don't disagree on the actual
> #referent of "Ortcutt".
>
> I'm surprised Jorge hasn't picked on this yet. Maybe it's nighttime
> in Argentina.

And I couldn't think of a better alternative.

> The problem with this is that the ambiguity is not necessarily
> about the name _Ortcutt_ per se. For example, if all John believes
> is that the head of MI5 is a spy, and I happen to know that the
> head of MI5 is Ortcutt, then (5b) would be appropriate but if
> John has clocked Ortcutt as a spy -- i.e. identified the individual
> -- but nonetheless does not know the *name* of that individual then
> I would want to use the de dicto reading but not the onomastically-
> based formulation that you propose. John's belief is that the
> possessor of Ortcuthood is a spy, not that the bearer of the name
> Ortcut is a spy.

Let's see if this works:

1) la djan krici le du'u da poi ckaji le ka me la ortkut cu mipryzu'e
  John believes that something with the property of being
    Ortcutt is a spy.

2) da poi ckaji le ka me la ortkut zo'u
  la djan krici le du'u da mipryzu'e
    There is something with the property of bring Ortcutt
    that John believes to be a spy.

Here it is not necessary for John to know Ortcutt's name, and yet
I think 1) does require that John knows that the spy is Ortcutt.
Isn't this what you proposed first though?

co'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.