From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:11:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 14 Feb 2001 23:11:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 5242 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2001 23:11:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2001 23:11:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.197) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2001 23:11:28 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:11:27 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.14 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:11:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.14] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:11:26 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2001 23:11:27.0283 (UTC) FILETIME=[75172830:01C096DB] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >John: >#5a la djan. -believes le du'u da poi selcme zo .ortkut. cu -spy >#i.e. John believes that what is named "Ortcutt" is a spy >#i.e. reference de dicto ># >#5b da poi selcme zo .ortkut. zo'u la djan -believes le du'u da -spy >#i.e. there is something named "Ortcutt" that John believes to be a spy >#i.e. reference de re ># >#This presumes that John & the speaker don't disagree on the actual >#referent of "Ortcutt". > >I'm surprised Jorge hasn't picked on this yet. Maybe it's nighttime >in Argentina. And I couldn't think of a better alternative. >The problem with this is that the ambiguity is not necessarily >about the name _Ortcutt_ per se. For example, if all John believes >is that the head of MI5 is a spy, and I happen to know that the >head of MI5 is Ortcutt, then (5b) would be appropriate but if >John has clocked Ortcutt as a spy -- i.e. identified the individual >-- but nonetheless does not know the *name* of that individual then >I would want to use the de dicto reading but not the onomastically- >based formulation that you propose. John's belief is that the >possessor of Ortcuthood is a spy, not that the bearer of the name >Ortcut is a spy. Let's see if this works: 1) la djan krici le du'u da poi ckaji le ka me la ortkut cu mipryzu'e John believes that something with the property of being Ortcutt is a spy. 2) da poi ckaji le ka me la ortkut zo'u la djan krici le du'u da mipryzu'e There is something with the property of bring Ortcutt that John believes to be a spy. Here it is not necessary for John to know Ortcutt's name, and yet I think 1) does require that John knows that the spy is Ortcutt. Isn't this what you proposed first though? co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.