Date:  Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:50:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712221750.MAA24183@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: xu broda
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1458
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 22 12:50:34 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

> >> There are of course other conventions found in logic.  But I consider a
> >> xu question "true" if it is true without the xu, and this seems like it
>  should> apply to a xukau as well.
> >
> >{xu broda} = {ma jei broda} rather than {broda}
>
> It is not equivalent to either, though I claim that the first and third
> have identical truth functions (which doesn't seem to be quite what you
> mean by "truth-functionally equivalent".)  It is certainly not
> truth-functionally equivalent to the "ma jei broda", because 1) the
> answer to the two questions differs and 2) the correct filling in of the
> "ma" with "la fals" is a true statement.  So by my above statement "xu
> broda" is false, whereas the jei statement is true when filled in with a
> correct value for ma (and the existence of a value that makes it true,
> makes the bridi with ma "true").


{broda} is an assertion and can be true or false and defined
truth-conditionally. {xu broda} and {ma jei broda} aren't
and can't. In speech-act terms, they are directives. Using
"satisfaction conditions" rather than truth-conditions,
{xu broda} and {ma jei broda} are equivalent. Well: I had better
hedge. They would be equivalent if they meant "Is it true that...?"
and "What is the truthvalue of...?". But if they mean "Tell me
a replacement for this word that would make the sentence true",
then they're not equivalent. Certainly {xu kau broda} and
{ma kau jei broda} are equivalent.

--and