From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 05 17:43:09 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 6 Oct 2001 00:43:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 38131 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 00:43:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 00:43:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 00:43:08 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.29]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
          id <20011006004307.FTVH710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:43:07 +0100
To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: "knowledge as to who saw who" readings
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:42:08 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKEBFENAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.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
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11382

"John knows who saw who", or "John has knowledge as to who saw who" 
(and likewise "has an opinion as to") seems to cover three different 
sorts of scenario. (Even if the English turns out not to, we still 
will want to be able to distinguish them in Lojban.)


Context: Bill saw Anne and Anne saw Bill and nobody else saw anybody
else.

Scenarios:
1. John knows Bill saw Anne.
2. John knows Bill saw Anne and Anne saw Bill.
3. John knows Bill saw Anne and Anne saw Bill and nobody else saw anybody
   else.

Here is how I'd render these using the 'extension-claim' analysis, which
is part of a programme to find logically explicit formulae that don't
treat questions as primitives. 

EC1. da zo'u la djon djuno tu'odu'u da cmima de poi ke'a -extension
     tu'odu'u ce'u viska ce'u

EC2. ro da poi ke'a cmima de poi ke'a -extension tu'odu'u ce'u viska ce'u
     zo'u la djon djuno tu'odu'u da cmima de 

EC3. da zo'u la djon djuno tu'odu'u da -extension tu'odu'u ce'u viska ce'u


Question 1: Are there any (relevant) defects or problems with (1-3)?

Question 2: How does Jorge's lojban rendering of the set-of-answers 
analysis distinguish (1-3)?

Question 3: Are there any other distinct sorts of scenario that get expressed
by indirect questions (in "have knowledge as to" contexts)?

--And.