From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 01 18:29:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 01:29:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 35012 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 01:29:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 01:29:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.90) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 01:29:26 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:29:23 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.50 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 01:29:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.50] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 01:29:23 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Sep 2001 01:29:23.0565 (UTC) FILETIME=[B257D1D0:01C1334E] From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam 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? Yes, but notice that the referent(s) of {le zarci} get established once for all the set. If it refers to only one store, the fa'u answer won't make much sense. >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. You may be right, and that solves the {frica} issue, but then it sets us back in trying to explain {makau}... >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. Certainly. {le ka da mamta ce'u} is one property in which they are equal. Both share that property. >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. Ok, I guess that's possible. I'm not yet totally clear on what the scope of makau is. >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"? That's nice! I think I'll go with this for now. >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". I don't like that, it makes it much more complicated to use. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp