From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 07 09:09:31 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 16:09:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 17462 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 15:58:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 15:58:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 15:58:31 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.175]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
          id <20010907155829.LCHR29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:58:29 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:57:46 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGELPEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <96.19b576d8.28c9e034@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10547

pc:
> a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: 
>   > It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la meris; 
>   > noda; ... }. 
> 
>   Right. Now, the downside to the way you put it is that that can't 
>   possibly be the proper logical formulation, since the list of 
>   possible answers is infinite.
> 
> Except that none of these is a proper answer, merely an ellipsis from a 
> proper answer. The answer to a direct question is a full bridi, just as the 
> questiion is.

I was talking about the previous para where Jorge defines the set of
answers as {la djan klama, la djan e la meris klama, ...}. I agree that
that's the set of answers, and that it helps towards an explicit understanding
of Qkau, but it doesn't get us to a satisfactory Qkau-less logical form.
(But my "da is extension of" approach does.)

> By the way, one thing you said is right: this makes explaining direct 
> questions on the basis of indirect the easiest way to go, once the principle 
> gets established. 

Good.

--And.