WikiDiscuss

pc:
> > Yes, I do mean negation transparency. I take
> > these to be materially equivalent:
> >
> > naku lo rozgu cu xunre
> > lo rozgu naku cu xunre
> >
> > "It is not the case that roses are red."
> > "As for roses, it is not the case that they are
> > red."
>
> I know you do and I am still waiting for an
> explanation of how this is going to work.

I don't know what kind of further explanation you
expect. Why wouldn't it work?

> The
> first means that is false that some (particular,
> I would think) roses are red — all of them.
> That could be because there are no roses or
> because there are no roses picked out by the
> expression or because there are but not all of
> them are are red — but some of them might be.
> The second says that there are roses picked out
> by the expression and all of them are non-red.
> Note that only one subcase covered by the first
> is covered by the second, hardly an equivalence.

That's the case if you take {lo rozgu} to be
{ro lo rozgu}, a quantified term. But I don't.
For me it's a constant that refers to roses.

> I would not put up a wiki page — which has a
> habit of being permanent — until I was
> reasonably confident of what I had.

Wiki pages are modifiable, and if you want to erase the
whole thing at some point you can.

> And, of
> course, I would not put up my page without
> criticizing your — which means that der
> Gruppenfuehrer will erase my page immediately he
> notices it

I doubt that very much. You are very welcome to criticize
mine all you please.

>(he has threatened this several times
> and has usually followed through on his threats).

Most of his complaints as I remember have been about form
rather than content, things like excessive quoting and such.
I doubt very much he would censor anything you write about
the language.

> So there is not much of a point to that exercise.

OK, but don't expect me to keep all your proposals with
their variations in mind if there isn't a place where I
can check what they were with reasonable accessibility.

> Well, it is back in the archives of the gadri
> thread somewhere. I can try to fish it out, but
> — on the basis of the response the last time --
> I doubt that anyone but you will look at it.

And if you find it and just post it here, it will be lost
when we need to check again next month. A wiki page is much
more convenient for this, because then you can just direct
me to go look there. And if someone else suddenly became
interested, now or three months from now, they wouldn't
have to wade through hundreds of posts to find it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail