From pycyn@aol.com Thu Aug 16 17:48:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 17 Aug 2001 00:48:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 13747 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2001 00:48:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Aug 2001 00:48:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Aug 2001 00:48:08 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.3.) id r.c8.19407f54 (3980) for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:48:04 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Second session on Record: anaphora To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c8.19407f54.28adc3c4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_c8.19407f54.28adc3c4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/16/2001 6:29:06 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > I don't see how this avoids self-referential problems, since the > antecedent of no'a contains no'a. True, but that problem is unavoidable with this sort of anaphora. It does get rid of {nei}, however and thus of the simple self referential bridi {nei}. The simple {no'a} is > > either meaningless or not self-referential in that special way. We are agreed that as selbri of grammatical bridi (i.e. when not in > sumti tail), nei and no'a are useless. If we are nonetheless worried > about the philosophical problems of no'a and nei then my syntactic > definition of them fixes the philosophical problems. > These seem to be lost somewhere in this thread. Could you repeat them for the record? --part1_c8.19407f54.28adc3c4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/16/2001 6:29:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


I don't see how this avoids self-referential problems, since the
antecedent of no'a contains no'a.


True, but that problem is unavoidable with this sort of anaphora.  It does
get rid of {nei}, however and thus of the simple self referential bridi
{nei}.  The simple {no'a} is

either meaningless or not self-referential in that special way.


We are agreed that as selbri of grammatical bridi (i.e. when not in
sumti tail), nei and no'a are useless. If we are nonetheless worried
about the philosophical problems of no'a and nei then my syntactic
definition of them fixes the philosophical problems.

These seem to be lost somewhere in this thread.  Could you repeat them for
the record?
--part1_c8.19407f54.28adc3c4_boundary--