Date:  Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:52:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712200052.TAA00677@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1971
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 19 19:52:10 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

 And:
>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?
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

>> 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, 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.

co'o mi'e xorxes