From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 01 15:55:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 1 Sep 2001 22:55:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 57008 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 22:55:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2001 22:55:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 22:55:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.135.fbb7fb (4069) for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:55:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <135.fbb7fb.28c2c165@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:55:33 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] A serious but ungeneralized new attempt on Q-kau To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_135.fbb7fb.28c2c165_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10378 --part1_135.fbb7fb.28c2c165_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/30/2001 8:44:31 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > ro) de da poi ke'a ge jetnu gi du'u de -is-extension-of lodu'u=20 > ce'u prami ce'u zo'u ko'a djuno da >=20 This seems complex. Will the more direct, ro da rode di poi ge jetnu gi du= 'u=20 da prami de zo'u koa djuno di, work as well, without the metalinguistic tur= n?=20 =20 Why not the NOT, exactly? It has indeed changed, your old one has ceased t= o=20 be yours, your new one has just become yours, so whichever one is referred= =20 to, it has changed. This is not supposed to be a general solution after all= . I suppose this is here as a crypto case of "What my phone number is has=20 changed" It seems odd to try and be explicit about this and not talk about= =20 time or some other relevant factor (cenba4). Here we have only that the ne= w=20 number (I suppose) has come to be (with the implication that the old one ha= s=20 ceased to be). That is, {lemi fonxyjudri cu cnino}. Why {lo du'o} rather=20 than {le ka}? politics?, carefulness? It makes a difference? I like the basic form, {le ka makau fonxyjudri mi cu cenba} for what has=20 changed is just that function that connects people to numbers: the number h= as=20 not changed (either of them) nor have I, only the connection. This does no= t=20 come out in the explicit format, although what is said does amount to a par= t=20 of it. Taking a question as a set of answers, what has happened is that we= =20 kept the question but changed which answer was right. da de gege da cmima= =20 lo'i duu makau fonxyjudri mi gi de cmima lo'i du'u makau fonxyjudri mi gi g= e=20 da puenaica jetnu gi de puna.eca jetnu. Messy, but precise and correct, I= =20 think. (Note, the only difference among members of {ma fonxyjudri mi} are= =20 what goes in for {ma}.) Muddling, what with those negations within negations and the scrambled scop= e=20 (it seems to work out that k and f love at least one person in common). Well, the essence is {da ga ko'a enai fo'e prami da gi fo'e enai ko'a prami= =20 da}. But that doesn't help with the general problem. We can kite {ko'a=20 prami da} to something about being a member of lo'i du'u ko'a prami makau,= =20 but that won't help, since for each person, that ko'a loves them is a membe= r=20 of that set, so truth comes into it somewhere. Elsewhere I had come up wit= h=20 the notion that {ka} (the guy with {ce'u} in it differed from {du'u}=20 (without) in that {ka} gave only the right answers, so the whole could redu= ce=20 to (in symbols rather than trying to get it into Lojban): Ex( ly(ka ka'o prami y)(x) =3D/=3D lz(ka fo'e loves z)(x)) (which is what = was=20 said above, but looks a lot more precise). I hope this helps a bit in the driection of precision. --part1_135.fbb7fb.28c2c165_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/30/2001 8:44:31 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:

ro) de da poi ke'a ge jet= nu gi du'u de -is-extension-of lodu'u=20
ce'u prami ce'u zo'u ko'a djuno da

This seems complex. Will the more direct, ro da rode di poi ge je= tnu gi du'u=20
da prami de zo'u koa djuno di, work as well, without the metalinguistic= turn?=20

<??lodu'u makau fonxyjudri cu cenba (be lodu'u ce'u jetnu??)
(NOT "le fonxyjudri be mi cenba")
"My phonenumber has changed">
Why not the NOT, exactly? It has indeed changed, your old one has= ceased to=20
be yours, your new one has just become yours, so whichever one is refer= red=20
to, it has changed. This is not supposed to be a general solution after= all.

<in explicit form:

de da poi ke'a du'u de -is-extension-of lodu'u ce'u fonxyjudri be
=A0=A0 mi zo'u da jetnybinxo [=3D change-from-false-to-true]>
I suppose this is here as a crypto case of "What my phone number is has= =20
changed" It seems odd to try and be explicit about this and not t= alk about=20
time or some other relevant factor (cenba4). Here we have only th= at the new=20
number (I suppose) has come to be (with the implication that the old on= e has=20
ceased to be). That is, {lemi fonxyjudri cu cnino}. Why {lo du'o}= rather=20
than {le ka}? politics?, carefulness? It makes a difference?
I like the basic form, {le ka makau fonxyjudri mi cu cenba} for what ha= s=20
changed is just that function that connects people to numbers: the numb= er has=20
not changed (either of them) nor have I, only the connection. Thi= s does not=20
come out in the explicit format, although what is said does amount to a= part=20
of it. Taking a question as a set of answers, what has happened is that= we=20
kept the question but changed which answer was right. da de gege = da cmima=20
lo'i duu makau fonxyjudri mi gi de cmima lo'i du'u makau fonxyjudri mi = gi ge=20
da puenaica jetnu gi de puna.eca jetnu. Messy, but precise and co= rrect, I=20
think. (Note, the only difference among members of {ma fonx= yjudri mi} are=20
what goes in for {ma}.)

<ko'a fo'e frica lodu'u ce'u prami ma kau
"Ko'a and Fo'e differ in who they love"

in explicit form:

no da poi de zo'u ke'a -is-extension-of lodu'u de prami ce'u zo'u
na ku ge ko'a gi fo'a me de>
Muddling, what with those negations within negations and the scrambled = scope=20
(it seems to work out that k and f love at least one person in common).
Well, the essence is {da ga ko'a enai fo'e prami da gi fo'e enai ko'a p= rami=20
da}. But that doesn't help with the general problem. We can= kite {ko'a=20
prami da} to something about being a member of lo'i du'u ko'a pra= mi makau,=20
but that won't help, since for each person, that ko'a loves them is a m= ember=20
of that set, so truth comes into it somewhere. Elsewhere I had co= me up with=20
the notion that {ka} (the guy with {ce'u} in it differed from {du'u}=20
(without) in that {ka} gave only the right answers, so the whole could = reduce=20
to (in symbols rather than trying to get it into Lojban):
Ex( ly(ka ka'o prami y)(x) =3D/=3D lz(ka fo'e loves z)(x)) (which= is what was=20
said above, but looks a lot more precise).

I hope this helps a bit in the driection of precision.
--part1_135.fbb7fb.28c2c165_boundary--