From a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx Tue Nov 30 03:01:45 1999
X-Digest-Num: 297
Message-ID: <44114.297.1618.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:01:45 -0000
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx
Subject: RE: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
> 
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >I think you're each half-right: it has to be *a* relevant answer. So
> >"John" would be an adequate answer even if he was not the only one to
> >have come.
> 
> I'm not convinced. Suppose John and Paul were the only ones
> who came, and Mary knows that John came but not that Paul
> came. Now:
> 
> (1) Does Mary know who came?
> Yes, she knows that John came.
> 
> (2) Does Mary know who came?
> No, she only knows that John came, but not that Paul did too.
> 
> I find (2) acceptable and (1) suspect, but I suppose other people
> can make other judgements.

There must be some issues of relevance that distinguish between
"all relevant answers" vs. "some relevant answers". But this is
a side issue, as far as I'm concerned, so I won't agonize about
it further here.

--And.