From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Oct 06 20:06:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 03:04:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 60815 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 03:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 03:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 03:06:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:06:29 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.237 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 07 Oct 2001 03:06:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.237] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 03:06:29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2001 03:06:29.0848 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F894D80:01C14EDD] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > Would not those that are > > equivalent always be rephraseable so as to fit the matrix? > >Yeah, but they might not be the one he knows, thinks of, etc. etc. The >intensional problem that extension-claim theory has. Almost every answer >actually has an extension-claim equivalent, which somebody might think of, >so >set-of answers covers that case, but is not restricted to it. We are ready >for a wide range of possibilities in each case, not just the one. I would still like to see an example. How could {la djan djuno le du'u makau broda} mean that {la djan djuno le du'u ko'a brode} but not that {la djan djuno le du'u ko'a broda}? Could you give an example? ><>and -- perhaps related to that last bit -- {na'i}, > >That one I would probably exclude. Could you give an example?> > >Classics: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" when you either don't have >a >wife or have never beaten her. But it doesn't involve kau. Is {la djan djuno le du'u xukau do co'u darxi le do speni} true when you have never beaten her and John knows it? I think "Does John know whether you have stopped beating your wife?" has the same failures as "Have you stopped beating your wife?", so {na'i} cannot be part of the set of answers covered by the indirect question. It will also be answered with {na'i}, not with {go'i}. > When dealing with And, it turns out better not to use {le}, since he >tends >to make much of its idiosyncrasies -- which can be useful, but can also get >you into trouble (who all has to agree on what is referred to and how >detailed must that agreement be?) Well, at least I agree with him that it is not the knower/believer/opinion-holder that has to agree. It is no-one within the text that uses the {le}-description. It is the speaker and to some extent the listener. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp