Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: fancu

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:29:19 EDT

In a message dated 10/8/2001 8:22:23 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.