From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 08 13:41:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 8 Oct 2001 20:41:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 46776 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2001 20:26:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Oct 2001 20:26:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Oct 2001 20:26:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.29.1be2f28a (4505) for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.1be2f28a.28f365f4@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:26:28 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: fancu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_29.1be2f28a.28f365f4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_29.1be2f28a.28f365f4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/8/2001 1:18:04 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > (Of course {na'i} is a perfectly ok illocutionary answer, > but the set of answers involved in indirect questions has=20 > to be the set of logical answers.) >=20 I suspect this is where we differ. I want to stick to the illocutionary=20 answers, because they are a moe manageable set and include all the logical= =20 ones that will ever be useful. But they include a few that muck some thing= s=20 up as well (not really, but they take some work). I suppose the actual answer is { mi na'i co'u darxi lomi speni} (by the way= ,=20 {darxi} by itself is not good for "beating" in htis context, nor is {co'u}= =20 for "stop")=20 The fact that a question does not meet its presuppositions does not make it= =20 less of a question, it merely makes it one that has a peculiar correct=20 answer. Of course, the {na'i} answer my also allow in various expansions=20 {noda speni mi} or "I never started being my wife" or.... --part1_29.1be2f28a.28f365f4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/8/2001 1:18:04 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias= @hotmail.com writes:


(Of course {na'i} is a pe= rfectly ok illocutionary answer,
but the set of answers involved in indirect questions has=20
to be the set of logical answers.)


I suspect this is where we differ.  I want to stick to the illocut= ionary answers, because they are a moe manageable set and include all the l= ogical ones that will ever be useful.  But they include a few that muc= k some things up as well (not really, but they take some work).

<I'm not convinced. Consider this:

"Does John know whether you have stopped beating your wife?"

1- "Yes, he does. He knows that I don't even have a wife."

2- "No, there's nothing for him to know about it. He knows
=A0 =A0 that I don't even have a wife."

I find (2) more realistic. If "I don't even have a wife" was
one of the members of the whether-answer-set, then (1) should=20
be the right answer.>

I suppose the actual answer is { mi na'i co'u darxi lomi speni} (by the= way, {darxi} by itself is not good for "beating" in htis context, nor is {= co'u} for "stop")=20
The fact that a question does not meet its presuppositions does not mak= e it less of a question, it merely makes it one that has a peculiar correct= answer.  Of course, the {na'i} answer my also allow in various expans= ions {noda speni mi} or "I never started being my wife" or....
--part1_29.1be2f28a.28f365f4_boundary--