From a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx Sat Dec 4 02:23:08 1999 X-Digest-Num: 301 Message-ID: <44114.301.1649.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:23:08 -0000 From: "And Rosta" From: "Jorge Llambias" > > la i,n cusku di'e > > >lambda x: E(x) > > > >i.e. the function which assigns truth values to the expression > E(...) given > >any > >value of the {kau}-tagged variable x. > > > >This implies you know the whole story - who came and who didn't come > >(given the long-ago-snipped example). > > I don't think you need to know who didn't come if > you know who came. You could deduce it, but that's > another story. The problem is that the predicate "know" > is especially confusing to treat these issues. If we change > to "John told me who came" it is more clear that he didn't > necessarily tell me who didn't came. > > Would it be correct to say that he told me the function? > Or did he tell me what is the function, which is again > substituting one indirect question with another? Maybe "He caused me to know the function, by speaking" or suchlike. But in at least some cases the indirect question remains: When you start school depends on when you are born. = A. ... depends on what the function 'when-you-are-born' is & not = B. ... depends on the function 'when-you-are-born' However, maybe if you somehow quantify over worlds the A, version would work, somehow. But my brain's gone to sleep. Enough.