From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 26 17:29:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 27 Sep 2001 00:28:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 57628 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 00:28:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 00:28:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 00:29:20 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.169.180f563 (3875) for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:29:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <169.180f563.28e3ccd8@aol.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:29:12 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_169.180f563.28e3ccd8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_169.180f563.28e3ccd8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/26/2001 6:56:46 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > I think we should distinguish the two claims: > > (1) la djan krici le du'u la bil se nanca > le tenfa be li 389017 bei li 1/3 > > (2) la djan krici le du'u le se nanca be la bil > cu tenfa li 389017 li 1/3 > > In (1), John's belief is about the {nanca} relationship, in (2) > it is about the {tenfa} relationship. In neither it's about both. > Whether or not {le tenfa be li 389017 bei li 1/3} is a good way > or not to refer to {li 73} is up to the speaker, and has nothing > to do with John's beliefs in (1). > Well, I suppose that the first is less suspect than the second, but I think it still runs into the problem that John doesn't even believe (we can assume) that 73 is the cube root of 389017 and so had not such beliefs about it in any place in the clause. Just ask him; he'll say "no." --part1_169.180f563.28e3ccd8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/26/2001 6:56:46 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


I think we should distinguish the two claims:

(1)     la djan krici le du'u la bil se nanca
          le tenfa be li 389017 bei li 1/3

(2)     la djan krici le du'u le se nanca be la bil
          cu tenfa li 389017 li 1/3

In (1), John's belief is about the {nanca} relationship, in (2)
it is about the {tenfa} relationship. In neither it's about both.
Whether or not {le tenfa be li 389017 bei li 1/3} is a good way
or not to refer to {li 73} is up to the speaker, and has nothing
to do with John's beliefs in (1).


Well, I suppose that the first is less suspect than the second, but I think it still runs into the problem that John doesn't even believe (we can assume) that 73 is the cube root of 389017 and so had not such beliefs about it in any place in the clause.  Just ask him; he'll say "no."
--part1_169.180f563.28e3ccd8_boundary--