From phma@oltronics.net Fri Sep 07 18:18:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 01:18:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 11823 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 01:16:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 01:16:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.232) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 01:16:10 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9CA2B3C504; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net To: Subject: Re: [lojban] ko'a klama .isecaubo mi djuno Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:14:44 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <01a801c13350$ed266040$74b6003e@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <01a801c13350$ed266040$74b6003e@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01090721144423.05217@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat 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