From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 29 18:43:33 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 30 Sep 2001 01:43:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 16446 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2001 01:43:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2001 01:43:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2001 01:43:32 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.107.6582cff (4588)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 21:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <107.6582cff.28e7d2bd@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 21:43:25 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] zo'e interpretation
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_107.6582cff.28e7d2bd_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_107.6582cff.28e7d2bd_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/29/2001 7:42:03 PM Central Daylight Time, 
a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:


> While accepting that such moves aren't part of Lojban, I am
> nonetheless a proponent of such moves, and I don't accept that they
> can't be stuck to. I won't go into details of what I propose, but
> the essence is that the zo'e is interpreted so as to be equivalent
> to the weakest possible claim, and that the weakest possible claim
> 

Well, they don't seem to get stuck to so far (can't even get people to decide 
on what to do with {ce'u} in {ka}). Taking {zo'e} as a mere existential 
quantifier or so can be strengthened griceanly, but that will not be the sort 
of thing that is wanted, because gricean solution are just the sort of thing 
that the restorers don't like: they are contextual and depend upon the belief 
web.

--part1_107.6582cff.28e7d2bd_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 9/29/2001 7:42:03 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">While accepting that such moves aren't part of Lojban, I am
<BR>nonetheless a proponent of such moves, and I don't accept that they
<BR>can't be stuck to. I won't go into details of what I propose, but
<BR>the essence is that the zo'e is interpreted so as to be equivalent
<BR>to the weakest possible claim, and that the weakest possible claim
<BR>can be griceanly strengthened until it achieves relevance.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Well, they don't seem to get stuck to so far (can't even get people to decide on what to do with {ce'u} in {ka}). Taking {zo'e} as a mere existential quantifier or so can be strengthened griceanly, but that will not be the sort of thing that is wanted, because gricean solution are just the sort of thing that the restorers don't like: they are contextual and depend upon the belief web.</FONT></HTML>

--part1_107.6582cff.28e7d2bd_boundary--

