From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 10 11:05:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 10 Sep 2001 18:05:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 74099 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2001 17:52:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2001 17:52:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2001 17:52:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.14d.c742ad (4012) for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14d.c742ad.28ce57e6@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:52:38 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10622 --part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/10/2001 12:03:19 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > These objections would carry a lot more weight if there was a rival=20 > analysis to the Ka Extension analysis. Then you could compare the > rival analyses as to how well they stand up under those and other > objections.=20 >=20 > But as things stand, there is no rival analysis. The set of answers analy= sis > is intuitive and attractive, but it is informal, and nobody has shown how= =20 > it=20 > helps to provide an explicit Q-kauless logical and/or lojban equivalent >=20 I wasn't aware that there was a need for a qkauless sentence in Lojban that= =20 was equivalent to one with qkau in it. Can you do an interogative-free=20 sentence in English that is equivalent to one with an interrogative in it?= =20 Provide general rules for creating same? I am sorry if the set-of-answers explanation is inadequately formal. I can= =20 formalize it if need be, but the results will be fairly hairy. It ddoes ha= ve=20 the advantage of being a coherent and correct single explication of all the= =20 interrogatives, in which priperties it seems to be unique, for the rival=20 (which may just be a quasi-formal restatement) seems so far to be neither=20 coherent nor correct and to involve a couple of unexplained notions to boot= .=20=20 It also ignores the role of informal factors in language generally and in=20 questions particularly, apparently. <#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- since it= =20 #has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will apply=20 #(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound" {ce'u},= =20 #the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20 I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all ordered n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are not restricted.> You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted: ( usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami Y}. #> X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in our #> exsmples??) and Y ranges freely.>) My point is that it is not and further that, even if it were, the extensi= on=20 of {makau} is even more restricted -- and implicitly rather than explicitly= . As for notions of "the extension of ka," it is not yet clear what role thes= e=20 are to play, since the various formulations involving them do not yet expla= in=20 anything and tend to appear irrelevant to the issues at hand. the extensio= n=20 of a property is, indeed, the set of ordered n-tuples that satisfy the=20 property. But that tells us precious little -- if anything -- about the=20 function of {ka makau broda} (or even {ka ce'u broda}) in a sentence. Nor= =20 does it seem open to suggesting a general answer which will fit with the us= e=20 of these expressions in connection with the various selbri with which they= =20 may occur. The set-of-answers explicaton, together with the range of gadri= =20 and quantifiers seems able to deal with these issues (and, if worked out in= =20 the particular formalism and suggests, probably could guide and's version=20 toward adequacy and accuracy).=20=20 <#> but in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard #> usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami Y}. #> X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in our #> exsmples??) and Y ranges freely. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is #> underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So #> although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restricted #> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in the #> same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form).> But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is not=20 obviously so -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so = at=20 all.=20=20 --part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/10/2001 12:03:19 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


These objections would ca= rry a lot more weight if there was a rival=20
analysis to the Ka Extension analysis. Then you could compare the
rival analyses as to how well they stand up under those and other
objections.=20

But as things stand, there is no rival analysis. The set of answers ana= lysis
is intuitive and attractive, but it is informal, and nobody has shown h= ow=20
it=20
helps to provide an explicit Q-kauless logical and/or lojban equivalent
of Qkau sentences


I wasn't aware that there was a need for a qkauless sentence in Lojban = that=20
was equivalent to one with qkau in it.  Can you do an interogative= -free=20
sentence in English that is equivalent to one with an interrogative in = it?=20
Provide general rules for creating same?
I am sorry if the set-of-answers explanation is inadequately formal. &n= bsp;I can=20
formalize it if need be, but the results will be fairly hairy.  It= ddoes have=20
the advantage of being a coherent and correct single explication of all= the=20
interrogatives, in which priperties it seems to be unique, for the riva= l=20
(which may just be a quasi-formal restatement) seems so far to be neith= er=20
coherent nor correct and to involve a couple of unexplained notions to = boot.  
It also ignores the role of informal factors in language generally and = in=20
questions particularly, apparently.

<#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- si= nce it=20
#has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will apply=20
#(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound" {ce'= u},=20
#the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20

I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all ordere= d
n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are not
restricted.>
You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted:
(<in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard
#> usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami= Y}.
#> X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in o= ur
#> exsmples??) and Y ranges freely.>)
 My point is that it is not and further that, even if it were, th= e extension=20
of {makau} is even more restricted -- and implicitly rather than explic= itly.
As for notions of "the extension of ka," it is not yet clear what role = these=20
are to play, since the various formulations involving them do not yet e= xplain=20
anything and tend to appear irrelevant to the issues at hand.  the= extension=20
of a property is, indeed, the set of ordered n-tuples that satisfy the= =20
property.  But that tells us precious little -- if anything -- abo= ut the=20
function of  {ka makau broda} (or even {ka ce'u broda}) in a sente= nce.  Nor=20
does it seem open to suggesting a general answer which will fit with th= e use=20
of these expressions in connection with the various selbri with which t= hey=20
may occur.  The set-of-answers explicaton, together with the range= of gadri=20
and quantifiers seems able to deal with these issues (and, if worked ou= t in=20
the particular formalism and suggests, probably could guide and's versi= on=20
toward adequacy and accuracy).  

<#> but in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standa= rd
#> usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami= Y}.
#> X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in o= ur
#> exsmples??) and Y ranges freely. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is
#> underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So
#> although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restr= icted
#> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u i= n the
#> same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form).= >

But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is not=20
obviously so -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be= so at=20
all.  

--part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary--