xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce
> Robin:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:45:39PM -0000, And
> Rosta wrote:
> > > Robin:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 05:38:55PM -0000,
> And Rosta wrote:
> > > > > > > To reiterate (for the sake of
> anyone else reading this), I
> > > > > > > am not saying that it is the job of
> *xorlo* to provide a
> > > > > > > way of translating "There is at
> least one AIDS cure, and
> > > > > > > we discussed it". Rather, I'm
> saying that one would like
> > > > > > > Lojban to have a way of translating
> it, and that xorlo
> > > > > > > happens not to provide it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't provide a way of doing it
> through gadri, but you
> > > > > > can do it through predicates that
> require their arguments to
> > > > > > be in the same world.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fine, but it is as well to note this as
> one of the major
> > > > > repercussions of xorlo on lojban.
> > > >
> > > > Erm. This has probably been discussed,
> but is there something
> > > > wrong with:
> > > >
> > > > su'o pa lo -cure- be la .aids. cu zasti
> .i ji'a mi'o pu casnu le
> > > > go'i
> > >
> > > The major repercussion is not whether there
> is a way to say it
> > > (which is an independent issue that could
> perhaps be discussed in
> > > the context of CAhA tcita), but rather that
> it is no longer the
> > > meaning of "mi'o casnu su'o -cure".
> >
> > It's not?
> >
> > su'o -cure- == su'o da poi -cure-; I'm not
> seeing a problem.
>
> 1. "We discussed at least one AIDS cure"
> 2. "There is at least one AIDS cure and we
> discussed it"
>
> These are not synonymous in English, because
> (2) but not (1) entails
> that a cure exists. "mi'o casnu su'o -cure" and
> "da ge -cure gi
> se casnu mi'o" used to mean the same as (2)
> *.
They still look like 2 to me, since the
quantifier is overtly outside the intensional
context.
Now they mean the
> same as (1). So now, to say (2), one would have
> to say "ca'a cure"
> or something along those lines. (I don't
> consider this a change
> for the worse.)
{ca'a} does not help unless it is always going to
the world of utterance, rather than the current
world, as seems to be the case.
> * They used to be understood as meaning (2),
> and that used to be
> taken for granted. But this is not to say that
> a careful reading
> of CLL could not be made to show that
> technically they meant (1),
> without anyone having realized it.
>