From xod@sixgirls.org Mon Feb 12 11:02:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 12 Feb 2001 19:02:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 96525 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 19:02:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2001 19:02:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta3 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 20:03:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1CJ29w11440 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:02:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:02:08 -0500 (EST) To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, And Rosta wrote: > I am satisfied to assert merely "Yes, because I can't understand (I) > except by taking it #as a synonym for (II)", but in fact as we have > debated off-list in the past, I also think that (I) has graspably > different consequences from (II). IIRC, the main arguments were > that intensional contexts, such as Ortcutt espionage sentences, > and -- more controversially -- cross-world identification of > individuals work only under (II). (Those are the philosophical > arguments. There are further linguistic arguments that pertain > to English and other natlangs but not to Lojban.) I am very eager to see as many real consequences of the difference between I and II as you can post. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!