From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Tue Aug 14 18:33:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 15 Aug 2001 01:33:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 76954 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2001 01:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Aug 2001 01:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Aug 2001 01:33:41 -0000 Received: from m56-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.56] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15WpJV-0007Px-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:17:42 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] lu'e (was: Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:32:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" Xod: > > I don't see this. You can know who went, without knowing the name of > > the goer. > > No, not if *I* am the one who says "I know the name of the goer"! And how > could I possibly not know the name if I tell you that "I know the > name..."? OK, but as I've said in another message, this doesn't generalize to "She knows the name of the goer". (Also, I can know who went without knowing what their name is.) > And I can say "Xod knows the name of the goer" without > > entailing that you know who went. > > > > Surely you can accept that this is true at least for English. > > > > > {John = the goer} > > > > > > By referring to the goer as "the goer", that indicates > > > that I KNOW the right half of the equation. How else could I mention > > > goer-ness then? > > > > Ah, I see possibly where the source of the misunderstanding is. > > > > "Susan knows the name of the goer" is ambiguous, even restricting > > readings to covert interrogative ones. The reading you want is one > > where the referent of "the goer" has the property of goerhood > > *in Susan's mind*. In the other reading, it is I the speaker who > > ascribe goerhood to the referent of "the goer". The latter reading > > is the Lojban one. Only the former reading would be vaguely > > equivalent to "Susan knows who it was that went and what their > > name is". > > In this case we have a problem. However, when I am speaking about myself, > there is no problem. Perhaps the mi djuno lu'e only works for mi! So it seems to me. --And.