From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 01 17:44:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 17062 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:06 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.116]) by out.newmail.net ; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 03:45:07 +0200 Message-ID: <01a401c13350$ea0b64a0$74b6003e@oemcomputer> To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 02:12:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" la .xorxes. cusku di'e > {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is the set {tu'o du'u la djan klama > le zarci; tu'o du'u la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan e > la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan enai la meris klama le > zarci; noda klama le zarci; ... } First, would you consider "tu'o du'u la .djan. fa'u la .meris. klama le zarci" to be a member of that set? I don't think that you can evaluate 'makau' like that. I think that the makau gets evaluated within the abstraction whenever the abstraction is applied according to the meaning of the selbri. You seem to be evaluating it within the context of the main bridi. IMO, lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci has a single member, with the 'makau' staying as it is. > This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store". > The English is more specific. To make the Lojban approximate more > to the English, I see two ways: {la pol djuno le du'u makau klama > le zarci} is more specific, but requires the speaker to know too: > the speaker has one of the members of the set of answers in mind, > and claims that Paul knows that answer. I don't think that "le" necessarily means that the speaker knows the exact identity of the "le"-phrase, just that s knows something specific enough about it to uniquely identify it for conversation, such as 'it's the one that is known by Paul' (otherwise we're all in big trouble :-). > But what about {frica}? We can't exactly claim: > > la dabias frica la tcelsis lo ka makau mamta ce'u > Dubya differs from Chelsea in a property of who their mother is. > > because none of the members of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} will > satisfy that claim. In fact, we can't expect x3 of frica to be > a property of x1, a property of x2, and at the same time the > difference between x1 and x2. I don't see the problem. If indeed x3 of frica is supposed to be a property of both x1 and x2, then the makau is evaluated once for each ckaji. "la .dabias. dunli la .tcelsis. le ka [da zo'u] da mamta ce'u" doesn't imply that they have the same mother. Likewise with "la .dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka makau mamta ce'u", where the makau is evaluated only when it is applied to each ckaji, and not once for the main bridi. In fact, here you could say "la .dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka da mamta ce'u", since they both have a mother and exactly which isn't important. Even with your set interpretation, couldn't you say that the member of the set is "tu'o ka la .barbras. fa'u la .xi,l,ris. mamta ce'u"? Or, we could reinterpret what the x3 of frica should be and make it into a relationship: "la .dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka ce'u se mamta lo na du be le mamta be ce'u". mu'o mi'e .adam.