Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:05:02 EDT

In a message dated 9/22/2001 4:43:32 PM Central Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> In a message dated 9/22/2001 1:25:58 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> [email-masked] writes: 
> 
> 
> 
> >> da zo'u la djan jinvi/krici tu'odu'u da -extension tu'odu'u 
>> ce'u pa moi merko -president 
>> 
>> -- i.e. as not substantively different from the treatment of djuno. 
>> 
> 
> Not so: the corresponding analysis would be 
> {da de poi du'u da extension of ledu'u ce'u pamoi merko president zo'u la 
> djan jinvi de} 
> However, in working the details of this out, I see that it does work as 
> well as well in this case as in the {djuno} one. I keep forgetting that 
> when you say "extension" you mean the propositions that such-and-such is 
> the extension, not the set itself (I think this ahs been a problem for a 
> while -- back to whether the things that go in for {makau} are answers). 
> I'll try to remember this is the extension-claim theory, not the extension 
> theory, which is very different. 
> 
But then next morning, looking at it again, I see that it is very different, 
for I doubt that John (even this one) even thinks about "the extension of " 
some property. In fact, I doubt that most people, who use indirect question 
all the time, would even understand the locution. So, if the property is 
within the scope of the believing, where, because of intensioonality, it has 
to be that property and not something incidentally equivalent to it, then I 
would say that it was very rarely the case that anyone had an opinion about 
who the first American President was. But, of course, the other version, 
which moves the property outside still works ok.