[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: fancu
la pycyn cusku di'e
<
"Does John know whether you have stopped beating your wife?"
1- "Yes, he does. He knows that I don't even have a wife."
2- "No, there's nothing for him to know about it. He knows
that I don't even have a wife." >
I suppose the actual answer is { mi na'i co'u darxi lomi speni}
({na'i mi ...} otherwise na'i attaches to {mi} only.)
But then that supports my point. Or do you mean that to be the
answer that John knows? I still think "Does John know whether you
have stopped beating your wife?" has itself a presupposition which
is not fully buried inside the indirect question. I would answer
{na'i}, not {go'i}.
(by the way,
{darxi} by itself is not good for "beating" in htis context, nor is {co'u}
for "stop")
Maybe {co'u ta'e darxi}?
The fact that a question does not meet its presuppositions does not make it
less of a question, it merely makes it one that has a peculiar correct
answer.
One that has no correct logical answer, in my view. Correct
illocutionary answers it has aplenty, I agree.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp