From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Sun Nov 28 17:58:29 1999
X-Digest-Num: 296
Message-ID: <44114.296.1609.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:58:29 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: RE: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"



>> > la djan djuno le du'u makau klama
>> > John knows who came.
>> >
>> > ro da poi ke'a klama zo'u la djan djuno le du'u da klama
>> > For each x that came, John knows that x came.
>>
>>I think you need to add
>>
>> ... and for each x that did not come, John knows that x
>> did not come

After some more thought, I think a better rendering would
be: "For each x that came, and for no other x, John knows
that x came." This is because if Paul didn't come, but
John doesn't even know of Paul's existence, then saying
"John knows that Paul didn't come" sounds wrong. Better
to say that John doesn't know anything about Paul.

That way it also fits better with the dinner one.

co'o mi'e xorxes