From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Mon Dec 13 10:27:10 1999
X-Digest-Num: 310
Message-ID: <44114.310.1710.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:27:10 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: More about questions and the like (was:What I have for dinner...")


Here's another argument against the expansion,
"for all x, John knows that x is...", this time not involving
names.

Let's say this morning John bought two bottles of
milk and put them in the fridge, and just to make it
simpler let's say the fridge was otherwise empty.
Now, Mary tells John that she took one of the bottles
out of the fridge. She obviously doesn't tell him which
one, because nobody cares which one she took.

Does John know what is now in the fridge?
Yes, he knows that there is a bottle of milk in the fridge.

Is it true that for all x, John knows whether x is in the fridge?
No, he only knows that one of the two bottles that he
put in the fridge is there, but he doesn't know which
one (nor does he care).

So, in this case at least, we cannot take the quantifier out
of the intensional context.

co'o mi'e xorxes