Subject: Re: [lojban] ko'a klama .isecaubo mi djuno

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:14:44 -0400

On Saturday 01 September 2001 21:33, Adam Raizen wrote:
> Well, in http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9403/msg00007.html, you said
> that ".i" is the vague sentence connective like "zo'e" is the vague
> sumti. In addition, assuming that ".i" always asserts both sentences
> gives us problems in cases like this. Why can ".ijenai" be allowed to
> deny the second bridi but ".isecaubo" not?

I think I've figured it out. {mi claxu lo fipybirka} says that there is a 
pectoral fin, but I don't have one (which is true; I'm not a fish). {mi claxu 
lo pavyseljirna}, on the other hand, is false, because {lo pavyseljirna} 
lacks a referent. Thus {ko'a klama .isecaubo mi djuno} asserts three things:

He came
I know
His coming lacks my knowledge.

This can be true, because I know something, even if it's not that he came. 
{ko'a klama .isecaubo lo rokci cu djuno} is false because it asserts that a 
rock knows, which it doesn't.

phma