From cowan@ccil.org Mon May 07 04:25:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 7 May 2001 11:25:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 35993 invoked from network); 7 May 2001 11:25:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 May 2001 11:25:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 May 2001 11:25:24 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14wj8g-0003ph-00; Mon, 07 May 2001 07:25:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] imperatives & scope (was: RE: Predicate logic and childhood.) In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "May 5, 2001 10:47:57 pm" To: And Rosta Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 07:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan And Rosta scripsit: > d. Make a note of my telephone number. > d'. Make a note of a telephone number of mine. > > This means (e/e'): > > e. For my telephone number, make it the case that you make a note of it. > e'. For a telephone number of mine, make it the case that you make a note > of it. > > It does NOT mean (f): > > f. Make it the case that you make a note of my telephone number. > f'. Make it the case that you make a note of a telephone number of mine. > > -- for these would be satisfied if you wrote down any old number but then > took steps to make sure that the phone company assigned this number to me. And if I really were able to do that, wouldn't I indeed be making a note of your telephone number? It certainly wouldn't be anyone else's telephone number! Your distinction strikes me as over-fine. Must we really distinguish between (in a restaurant): g. Give me my umbrella. g'. Give me my dinner. on the grounds that they mean h. For my umbrella, make it the case that you give it to me. h'. Make it the case that you give me something which is to be my dinner. It seems to me that the fact that my umbrella was (presumably) already mine when I came in, where as my dinner becomes *my* dinner only because you make it as a result of the illocutionary force of my request, is not something to ground this supposed difference in scope on. Indeed, I am about to get a new telephone number at work. What's wrong with my saying to the telephone installer "Make a note of my telephone number", even though it will not truly be mine until he assigns it to me? It strikes me as an entirely reasonable and perspicuous thing to say. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter