| In a message dated 8/30/2001 8:44:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: ro) de da poi ke'a ge jetnu gi du'u de -is-extension-of lodu'u This seems complex. Will the more direct, ro da rode di poi ge jetnu gi du'u da prami de zo'u koa djuno di, work as well, without the metalinguisticturn? <??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 hasceased to be yours, your new one has just become yours, so whichever one is referred to, it has changed. This is not supposed to be a general solution afterall. <in explicit form: de da poi ke'a du'u de -is-extension-of lodu'u ce'u fonxyjudri be mi zo'u da jetnybinxo [= change-from-false-to-true]> I suppose this is here as a crypto case of "What my phone number is has changed" It seems odd to try and be explicit about this and not talk about time or some other relevant factor (cenba4). Here we have only that the new number (I suppose) has come to be (with the implication that the old one has ceased to be). That is, {lemi fonxyjudri cu cnino}. Why {lo du'o}rather than {le ka}? politics?, carefulness? It makes a difference? I like the basic form, {le ka makau fonxyjudri mi cu cenba} for what has changed is just that function that connects people to numbers: the number has not changed (either of them) nor have I, only the connection. This does not come out in the explicit format, although what is said does amount to apart of it. Taking a question as a set of answers, what has happened is thatwe kept the question but changed which answer was right. da de gege da cmima lo'i duu makau fonxyjudri mi gi de cmima lo'i du'u makau fonxyjudri mi gi ge da puenaica jetnu gi de puna.eca jetnu. Messy, but precise and correct, I think. (Note, the only difference among members of {ma fonxyjudri mi} are 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 (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 da}. But that doesn't help with the general problem. We cankite {ko'a prami da} to something about being a member of lo'i du'u ko'a prami makau, but that won't help, since for each person, that ko'a loves them is a member of that set, so truth comes into it somewhere. Elsewhere I had come up with the notion that {ka} (the guy with {ce'u} in it differed from {du'u} (without) in that {ka} gave only the right answers, so the whole could reduce to (in symbols rather than trying to get it into Lojban): Ex( ly(ka ka'o prami y)(x) =/= lz(ka fo'e loves z)(x)) (whichis what was said above, but looks a lot more precise). I hope this helps a bit in the driection of precision. |