From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jun 26 07:13:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10734 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:13:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:24 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.7c.74fccee (4534) for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7c.74fccee.2688befe@aol.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:13:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] As Kunsunlundz said... [was RE: RECORD:containers] To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com So, after all the rhetoric against JCB for taking all predications without specific markers as merely potential, we end up in essentially the same place. I assume that our rhetoric for it is somewhat different (an unspecified tense -- nevermind that tense is not an obligatory category in lb -- may be located anywhere in the spatio-temporal-possible-imaginal world?). Well, at least this allows me to call a bottle a bottle even if it never does in fact have anything in it, because it is the sort of thing that in many worlds better run than this one would have something in it. What I can presumably not say of my empty bottle is {ta ca botpi}. This seems a little odd, since when I say {ta botpi} I am probably NOT thinking of them worlds over there and then but of the bottle I have in my hand here and now, that is the untensed form is contextually focused to the present. (This was at the heart of the rhetoric against JCB, as I recall, as well.) Notice, this does not help with xorxes' original problem, the scope of {noda}.