From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 18:47:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 11 Oct 2001 01:47:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 61589 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2001 01:47:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Oct 2001 01:47:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.11) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Oct 2001 01:47:07 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:47:07 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.47 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 01:47:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.47] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: fancu Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 01:47:06 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2001 01:47:07.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[A284C760:01C151F6] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > "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. What? I think it supports my point. If someone asks me "is it bogus that you have stopped beating your wife?" I will answer {na'i}, which means that the presuppositions did go up. The way I see it, the questioner, when asking a question, presents the listener with a set of answers, from which the listener is supposed to pick one. When the listener finds that no member of the set is adequate, the response is {na'i}. It says that the set is inadequate, it is not just another member of the set. The listener is not playing along with the questioner in this case. A similar case happens when the response is {ki'a}. This again is not yet another member of the presented set. It is rather an indication by the listener that they can't make out what set the speaker means to present. >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. Right. The questioner is presenting an inadequate set. Are you saying that the questioner never presents an inadequate set because {na'i} will always be a part of the set? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp