From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Oct 08 17:43:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 9 Oct 2001 00:43:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 70190 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2001 00:42:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Oct 2001 00:42:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.52) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Oct 2001 00:42:51 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 17:42:51 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.35 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:42:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.35] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: fancu Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 00:42:50 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2001 00:42:51.0125 (UTC) FILETIME=[53340A50:01C1505B] From: "Jorge Llambias" 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