Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: fancu

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:42:50

la pycyn cusku di'e

>But this may be a real usage issue -- assuming there are no theoretical
>aftereffects (I don't think that risinging presuppositions in this case 
>need
>to force them in others where they clearly don't apply, e.g., in "The claim
>that I have stopped beating my wife is bogus."

I think that could be ambiguous. It may have the meaning you intend,
but it can also be read as "it is bogus that I have stopped beating
my wife", which to me means that I haven't stopped.

>Maybe {co'u ta'e darxi}?>
>
>Better, though "hit" is not the same as "beat" either.

What would be the differences? What do you suggest for "beat"?
(In Spanish I would use "golpear" for both.)

><>The fact that a question does not meet its presuppositions does not make 
>it
> >less of a question, it merely makes it one that has a peculiar correct
> >answer.
>
>One that has no correct logical answer, in my view. Correct
>illocutionary answers it has aplenty, I agree.>
>
>One of the reasons I prefer illocutionary answers. It is the insistence on
>logical answers that gives these kinds of questions their force and they
>should be stripped of it.

Why should they be stripped of their force? Is this a moral issue,
or is there a logical basis for the stripping?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp