From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 09 05:29:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 9 Oct 2001 12:29:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 63767 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2001 12:29:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 9 Oct 2001 12:29:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Oct 2001 12:29:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.66.157bc2ee (16337) for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <66.157bc2ee.28f4479f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:29:19 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: fancu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_66.157bc2ee.28f4479f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_66.157bc2ee.28f4479f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2001 8:22:23 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > 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. > Hmmm. OK, bad example -- but you get the point, which is made as well by your version: that the presuppositions of the included sentence do not go up to the enclosing one. <>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.)> "Beat" involves repeated striking on each single occasion. Ouch, a hard question -- as most in value theory are. The point is that in compelling the "logical" answer -- Yes or no -- you are also forcing a person to commit to the presuppositions, which he may not want to, perhaps because they are false. --part1_66.157bc2ee.28f4479f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2001 8:22:23 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


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.


Hmmm.  OK, bad example -- but you get the point, which is made as well by your version: that the presuppositions of the included sentence do not go up to the enclosing one.

<>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.)>

"Beat" involves repeated striking on each single occasion.

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

Ouch, a hard question -- as most in value theory are.  The point is that in compelling the "logical" answer -- Yes or no -- you are also forcing a person to commit to the presuppositions, which he may not want to, perhaps because they are false.  

--part1_66.157bc2ee.28f4479f_boundary--