From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 07 09:07:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 16:07:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 35749 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 15:58:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 15:58:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 15:58:08 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.175]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907155805.LCAC29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:58:05 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:57:21 +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: <165.77eea7.28c9e032@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > In which case the makau locution is rather unsatisfactory, since it > will invariably be making a weaker claim than is usually desired. > > {makau} sets, like {ma} sets are sets of answers: generally "Somebody" > and "The store goer" and "Nobody" (except in presupposition disputes) > are not answers and so have no place in the set. Yes, this is reasonable. ("Nobody" is less likely to be an illegitimate answer, though, and it is important to remember that it can be a legitimate answer, since a number of Q-kauless analyses have rightly foundered on their inability to cover "no da" answers, as Jorge helpfully keeps reminding us.) --And.