Subject: Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:35:53 EDT

In a message dated 10/11/2001 6:02:42 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> No idea if it really is relevant, but a debate from 1990 is a REALLY old one.
> 
Yes, and so are the answers. Certainly not acceptable today (I hope):
8 versions of "John is looking for a bicycle or a fish" split on 1) whether 
the thinks are known to exist, 2) whether John knows/cares which he is 
looking for 3) whether the speaker knows which he is looking for
<1. There are a bike and a fish, and John is trying to find one of these (he 
doesn't care which one).                
la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e .a lo finpe
The-one-called John seeks an-existing bicycle (lit., two-wheel-vehicle)or 
an-existing fish. >

Well, {lo} doesn't guarantee it is existing, only that it really is a fish 
(if anything)
{da poi relxi'uma'e de poi finpe zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da a de} (note, 
this buried connective cannot be raised).

<2. There are a bike and a fish, and John is trying to find one of these (but 
I don't know which of the two he's actually looking for).                 
la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e bu'a sisku lo finpe>
The-one-called John (seeks an-existing bicycle) or (seeks an-existing fish). >

Again, the actual existence can only be handled outside the the intensional 
context:

<3. There is a bike, and John is trying to find either this bike or a 
(possibly non-existent) fish (he doesn't care...)                 
la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e .a le finpe

The-one-called John seeks an-existing bicycle or the-thing-I-describe-as-a 
fish (which may or may not be a fish, or even exist). >

da poi relxi'uma'e zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da a lo finpe

4. There is a bike, and John is trying to find either this bike or some fish 
(but I don't know...).                 
la djan. cu sisku lo relxi'uma'e bu'a sisku le finpe

The-one-called John (seeks an-existing bicycle) or (seeks 
the-thing-I-describe-as-a-fish (which may or may not be a fish, or even 
exist)). >

da poi relxi'uma'e zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da gi'e sisku lo finpe (there may 
be a shorter way for this, but I am not sure about the rules here.)

<5. & 6. Similar to 3. & 4., but with the roles of "bike" and "fish" 
interchanged.                 la djan. cu siskule relxi'uma'e .a lo 
finpe               
la djan. cu sisku le rexi'uma'e bu'a siske lo finpe >

da poi finpe zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da a lo relxi'uma'e 
da poi finpe zo'u la djan sisku tu'a da gi'e sisku tu'a lo relxi'uma'e

<7. John is looking for a (possibly non-existent) bike or a (possibly 
non-existent) fish, and will be satisfied when he has found either one. 
                
la djan. cu sisku le relxi'uma'e .onai le finpe
The-one-called John seeks what-I-describe-as-a bicycle exclusive-or 
what-I-describe-as a fish. >
I'm not sure why the exclusive "or" suddenly. I ignore:
la djan sisku tu'a lo relxi'uma'e a lo finpe.

<8. John is looking for a bike or a fish, both possibly non-existent, but I 
don't know which one he's looking for.                 
la djan. cu sisku le relxi'uma'e bu'onai sisku le finpe
The-one-called John (seeks what-I-describe-as-a bicycle) exclusive-or(seeks 
what-I-describe-as-a fish).>
la djan sisku tu'a lo relxi'uma'e gi'a finpe (dubious, better stick to sisku 
tu'a lo relxi'uma'e gi'a sisku lo finpe).