From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 01 06:39:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 1 Sep 2001 13:39:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 52099 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 13:39:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2001 13:39:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 13:39:15 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.102]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010901133913.FBBE20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:39:13 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] A serious but ungeneralized new attempt on Q-kau Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:38:28 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <84.1aa1c204.28c10d7b@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > "What I have for dinner depends on what's in the fridge" > "What shirt I wear depends on where I'm going" > > I am not sure I understand, so much less agree with, the "explicit", or even > the normal, versions in this list. But I want to focus on this last case, > since it is pretty clearly ambiguous and I want to see whether I have sorted > things out aright. Me, I find I can't be sure I understand something unless I know how to render it in explicit form. This also affects my reading of your postings on Q-kau: some of what you say makes sense to me and some is incomprehensible to me, but in each case it would be more valuable if it were formalized. It would help me to understand the stuff I find incomprehensible, and it would help me to see whether the things that make sense actually guide us towards a solution. I'm not objecting to your searching and comparatively prolix and informal disquisitions, but I find I can't enter intelligently into dialogue with them. As for the sentences above, my sense is that they present a harder challenge than the ones I attempted before, so if we can't yet sort out the easier cases, it seems unlikely we can make progress on the harder ones. --And.