From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 27 16:06:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 27 Sep 2001 23:06:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 25913 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 23:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.4.54 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 23:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.121) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 23:06:37 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:06:37 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.35 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:06:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.35] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:06:36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2001 23:06:37.0295 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F303FF0:01C147A9] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Well, ideally, ask him "Is Bill the cube root of 389017 years old?" Is that meant to be: 1- xu la bil nanca le tenfa be li 389017 bei li 1/3 2- xu le se nanca be la bil cu tenfa li 389017 li 1/3 3- xu da se nanca la bil gi'e tenfa li 389017 li 1/3 They are three different questions which test three different possible beliefs. And when reporting the answer, do I have to use the same description for every gismu in order to report faithfully, or am I allowed to use a different description with the same referent? >I would >count "Say what?" or "I have no idea what the cube root of whatever you >said >is" and so on as effective "no"s , indicating that such was not his belief. I see. So to you, {le broda} inside a du'u in x2 of krici is not the speaker's description, but the believer's? Just as with {lu}? Or does it have to be both the speaker's and the believer's description? I have always taken {le broda} to be the speaker's description only, no matter how embedded, as long as it is not within quotes. To me {le pa broda} can always be substituted by another description with the same referent and the truth value doesn't change. You're saying this is not the case, right? And the same goes for names? Names within a du'u are not what the speaker calls their referents, but what the "owner" of the du'u calls them? I don't like it. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp