From pycyn@aol.com Thu Oct 11 17:49:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0); 12 Oct 2001 00:46:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 2009 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2001 00:46:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 12 Oct 2001 00:46:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2001 00:49:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.fb.1b2a7b70 (3926) for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:49:29 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fb.1b2a7b70.28f79819_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_fb.1b2a7b70.28f79819_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/11/2001 6:02:42 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes: > I reminded by this discussion of the ancient Lojbanic question of how to say: > "John seeks a bicycle or a fish" (which as I recall did not hinge on the > place structure of sisku, but rather on intenionality of John vs. the > speaker. > > >http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9005/msg00024.html > > No idea if it really is relevant, but a debate from 1990 is a REALLY old > one. > Oh, that looks like fun. But surely {sisku} must have been important, since the intensionalized piece doesn't look problematic -- {le} v. {lo}? --part1_fb.1b2a7b70.28f79819_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/11/2001 6:02:42 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes:



I reminded by this discussion of the ancient Lojbanic question of how to say:
"John seeks a bicycle or a fish" (which as I recall did not hinge on the
place structure of sisku, but rather on intenionality of John vs. the speaker.

>http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9005/msg00024.html

No idea if it really is relevant, but a debate from 1990 is a REALLY old one.




Oh, that looks like fun.  But surely {sisku} must have been important, since the intensionalized piece doesn't look problematic -- {le} v. {lo}? --part1_fb.1b2a7b70.28f79819_boundary--