From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Feb 07 04:00:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 7 Feb 2001 12:00:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 38088 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2001 12:00:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2001 12:00:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2001 12:00:19 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:44:15 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 07 Feb 2001 12:00:09 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:59:31 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Xod: #On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, And Rosta wrote: #> Xod: #> #On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, And Rosta wrote: #> #> (and I also think that it is the "(me) la X" form (and the notion of #> #> reference) that is metaphysically faulty). #. # #> #Metaphysically faulty? It is metaphysically faulty to interpret "me la #> #foo." "as x1 is refered to as foo"? #> #> Doesn't it mean something more like "is Foo" or "has the individuating #> characteristics (haecceity) of Foo"? And then, as John has said, the #> problem is with Foo. "la xod" refers to a particular human-sized #> chunk of spacetime, but "la sherlock holmes" doesn't. # #I don't buy this at all. Are you saying I can't lie and call you Sherlock #Holmes if I wish? What if I were mistaken and thought he really existed? As I understand it, in current Lojban you indeed cannot lie and call me Sherlock Holmes, at least not if you use a cmene (a fu'ivla would be no problem, IMO). You could of course do it if you thought he really existed, but it would be a failed reference, like "the current king of France". --And.