Message-Id: <199501242320.AA03775@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:04:41 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

And:
>   Ax, x is a member of {Xorxes, And}, Ey, y is sibling of x: I met y
>
> which translates (without loss of precision) as:
>
>   I met lo sibling be ro luha luhi la xorxes ce la and

The last step fails because in the Lojban version Ey comes before Ax,
i.e. "lo sibling" before "ro lu'a..."

As far as I can tell, {lo tunba be ro lu'a lu'i la xorxes ce la and} is
the same as {lo tunba be la xorxes e la and}.

> The case that motivated pc to propose xohu (or something resembling it)
> is "Pick a card" meaning "There is a card I command you to pick", and
> NOT "I command you to make it the case that there is a card that you
> pick". Without xohu that is unsayable.

I wouldn't say it is unsayable. You'd just have to use {minde}, like
you are doing in English. Since the meaning with {xo'u} is the more
unlikely, I don't really care that you need a circumlocution.


> As far as I'm aware, the default is that something has scope
> over what it precedes. I don't see that this is more or less coherent
> with either rule for the scope of something flagged by xohu.

If xo'u was simply a jump to an outer prenex, it wouldn't affect the
rule that everything has scope over what it precedes. I would like
to preserve that rule without exceptions.


> Broadly speaking, I think that my suggestion is preferable only
> because the rule for it is simpler.

I disagree that it is simpler. It forces another (more basic?) rule
to have exceptions.


> Say I know the house is blue: then I could say "She likes it that the
> house is blue". But if I don't know what colour the house is then I
> can say "She likes it that the house is the colour it is", or "She
> likes the fact that the house is the colour it is". How to render this
> into Lojban? Pred calc first:
>
>   Ex, x is the colour of the house & she likes the fact that x is the
>   colour of the house
>
> That goes straightforwardly into Lojban. Furthermore - dare I say it? -
> it seems that xohu will make this less cumbersome:
>
>    koha prami lo nu le zdani cu skari xohu da
>    Ex, koha likes the fact that x is the colour of the house.

[Marginal note: In Spanish, about the only things you can "love" (amar)
are God and your spouse. In English, you can love anything, from God
down to what someone is wearing or something you do. I would like
that {prami} keep some composture, even if not as extreme as that
of Spanish, at least not the other extreme either.]

{xo'u} seems to work there.

> Okay. If you accept that, then your beautiful example doesn't need
> makau.

Mmmm... Compare with:

        ko'a djuno le du'u le zdani cu skari makau
        ko'a djuno le du'u le zdani cu skari xo'u da
        Ex, ko'a knows the fact that x is the colour of the house.
        She knows what colour the house is.

Does this mean that {xo'u} and {kau} are one and the same thing?
Almost. The difference is that {xo'u da} is existentially quantified,
while {makau} isn't (and this may explain further why I prefer makau
to dakau).

        ko'a se pluka le nu le zdani cu skari makau

is more general, because it includes the possibility for example that
{le zdani cu skari noda}, or {le zdani cu skari reda}. The speaker
doesn't know the answer to {le zdani cu skari ma}, but does know
that whatever is the answer, ko'a likes that fact.

In the same way:

        ko'a djuno le du'u le zdani cu skari makau

admits the possibility that she knows that {le zdani cu skari noda},
while:

        ko'a djuno le du'u le zdani cu skari xo'u da

doesn't admit that possibility.

> However, let's go back to makau in the frica example, since
> I have at long last understood adequately (I hope) what you intend.
>
>   koha kohe frica le ka keha se skari makau
>
>   Koha and kohe differ in terms of the colour they are.
>   Koha and kohe differ by virtue of the fact that they are the colour
>     they are.

In this case, because {noda} is not that likely as a colour, they
are almost equivalent, but in general, no.

>   ro da, da is member of {koha, kohe}, ro de, da skari de:
>      koha kohe frica le nu da skari de
>
> There's an ugly repetition of {skari}, but it is sayable.

There you are essentially saying two sentences:

        da zo'u ko'a ko'e frica le nu ko'a skari da
        ije de zo'u ko'a ko'e frica le nu ko'e skari de

> Do you buy that?

No, but I'm understanding {makau} more and more.

Jorge