From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Feb 13 09:23:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 13 Feb 2001 17:23:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 90536 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2001 17:23:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2001 17:23:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Feb 2001 17:23:17 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:06:54 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:22:56 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:22:35 +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 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=20 #between I and II as you can post. By "real consequence" do you mean something other than the arguments I allude to in the quoted message, or are you just asking me to spell out these arguments? Let me know what you're after & I'll try to oblige. --And.