From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 07 10:57:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 17:57:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 69715 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 17:50:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 17:50:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 17:50:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.16b.7ce4c1 (4069) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16b.7ce4c1.28ca62e4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:50:28 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16b.7ce4c1.28ca62e4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_16b.7ce4c1.28ca62e4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/7/2001 11:10:27 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > 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.) > I realize that I have gotten hung up in "Who murdered the butler?" which has the presupposition that the butler was murdered and that someone did it (allowing also teams as we know). But something like "What's in the fridge?" or, indeed, What's for dinner?" don't have existential assumptions and "Nothing" is a perfectly good (elliptical) reply. --part1_16b.7ce4c1.28ca62e4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/7/2001 11:10:27 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


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.)

 I realize that I have gotten hung up in "Who murdered the butler?" which
has the presupposition that the butler was murdered and that someone did it
(allowing also teams as we know).  But something like "What's in the fridge?"
or, indeed, What's for dinner?" don't have existential assumptions and
"Nothing" is a perfectly good (elliptical) reply.   --part1_16b.7ce4c1.28ca62e4_boundary--