Message-Id: <m0qSRKM-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:49:49 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: To be or not to be? Coffee or tea?
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2693
Lines: 80

la lojbab cusku di'e

> If you want the dcihotomy tobe/not to be, how about
>
> zasti .aipei jonai na'e zasti .aipei .i. terdji .ei

I'm not sure na'e zasti is one of the choices. He's considering
existence only, but other than that it looks fine. (To keep to
Nick's number of syllables constraint I would remove one of the
aipei:

        aipei zasti jonai na'e zasti  i terjdi ei

[note: terjdi, not terdji]

I guess the pei is ok, since he's talking to himself.

> JL> Now, suppose I want to respond "either". If I say {.a}, I'm only
> JL> saying that I want at least one of them, but I'm not saying which.
> JL> How do I say that I want either? I would say {du'ibo}, but that's
> JL> not grammatical yet.
>
> Well my phraseology begs the question, since I don;t think it is a logical
> or a true/false question, but an emotive one.  But, given a ji
> question

There I was talking about the coffee or tea problem, not Hamlet.

> .a says either (or both!) will do

If I say
                mi djica loi ckafi .a loi tcati

then I'm not saying that either will do. I'm saying that at least one
of them will do, and I'm not saying which one.

host:   do djica loi ckafi ji loi tcati
guest:  .a
[host brings guest a cup of tea]
guest:  mi na djica loi tcati  i mi djica loi ckafi
[host pours tea on guest's head]

The guest was telling the truth when responding {.a}
What should she say if she really meant "either"?

And should I use tu'a with djica?

> JL>         mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi gi'a pinxe loi tcati
> JL> Does it further expand to
> JL>
> JL>     mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi kei .a le nu do pinxe loi tcati
> JL>
> JL> ?
>
> JL> The first one means that I want that you drink at least one of them,
> JL> but I don't have to want that you drink one in particular. In the second
> JL> one, I have to want that you drink one in particular.
>
> I don't see why.  If I drink both of them, I think that the desire is still
> satisfied.

It's not a matter of satisfying any desire. The truth value refers to whether
the desire exists to drink a particular one, or to drink either one.


> But in the abstract, your question is valid.  Each of those "lenu" clauses
> has its own prenex, and if there were any quantifiable variables in or implied
> in either lenu clause, then it is not automatically valid that you can
> export an arbitrary logical connective past the prenex to the higher level
> of your second example.  I just don't see any hidden quantifiable variables
> in your example.

Even without quantifiable variables the meanings are different. I was just
surprized that in those cases you can't expand a logical connective to two
bridis.

>
> lojbab
>
Jorge