Date:  Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:17:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712221817.NAA24888@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2560
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 22 13:17:59 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Jorge:
> >What I meant is that indirect questions with djuno & other
> >epistemic predicates translate into a certain type of logical
> >meaning, characterized by stuff like a universal quantifier
> >with wide-scope over the epistemic element, and stuff about
> >knowing that x is truth value of y, and so on. None of that
> >apparatus is needed for {frica}..
>
> Well, but how can you tell that that is due to the meaning
> of Q-kau rather than to the meaning of the epistemic predicate?

I don't think I am saying that is due to the meaning of Q-kau
rather than to the meaning of the epistemic predicate.

What I am saying is that I don't think you can take all the
different places where Q-kau is used, contrast them with
q-kau-less counterparts, and then find some element of meaning
that Q-kau contributes in every case.

> The Q-kau of dunli can be expanded with a universal quantifier
> of truth values too. Obviously since there's no epistemic
> element that part does not apply.
>
> >> This one can be explained exactly like {djuno}:
> >>
> >>         la djan dunli la alis le ka ce'u glico
> >>         ija la djan dunli la alis le ka ce'u na glico
> >>         "Either John equals Alice in that they're both English
> >>         or John equals Alice in that they're both not English."
> >
> >In what way is this like {djuno}?
>
> In that they follow exactly the same pattern of expansion:
>
>             broda le ka/du'u xukau brode
>             = broda le ka/du'u brode ija broda le ka/du'u na brode

I see. I'll bear this in mind as I lucubrate.

> >> How do you translate this one into logical form:
> >>
> >>         mi do toltugni le du'u xukau ta blanu
> >>         I disagree with you on whether that is blue.
> >>
> >> Is it an indirect question? It seems to have something in
> >> common with {frica}, in that there are two different evaluations
> >> of the question.
> >
> >   For every x, a truthvalue of le du`u ta blanu, it is not the case
> >   that we agree (= each of us believes/claims) that x is tv of
> >   le du`u ta blanu.
>
> But that's cheating, you're changing the predicate from {toltugni}
> to {na tugni}. If that's allowed,

It's allowed if toltugni entails na tugni. I think it does.

> then I can do {frica} as {na dunli}
> and use the above expansion. The idea was to use an epistemic
> predicate that requires different evaluations of the same indirect
> question, because that's what I see as the difficulty in expanding
> the Q-kau of frica.

I think {frica} is {na dunli}, isn't it? Is there a difference?

--And