| OK, so suppose we get away from sets and stick with the predicates we
actually have. I take it that a direct question, {ma broda}, is covertly of the form {ko xusra lo du'u makau broda}. Suppose the directee says {la b broda}. Has he answered the question, i.e., is it the case that {la'e lu la b broda li'u du'u makau broda}, that is is {le (better {to'u}) du'u la b broda cu du'u makau broda}? The answer to this is not transparent. As noted, it often fails to be the case (though not always by any means) that {da broda} and {noda broda} fail, and {lo broda cu broda} almost always fails. In a given case, others may also fail (stones if the questions supposes an agent, long dead folks if the questions supposes a contemporary, and so on). But now at least, like And, I have {makau} universal -- though only the ones that actually fit the property are significant. Note that this is still not {ce'u} for the property in question still has {makau} in its description, is still a property of expressions, not of things yet, unlike the {ce'u} cases (so far at least). In at least some cases we can carry out the elimination of indirect questions pretty thoroughly: {la dubias frica la tclsys le du'u maka mamta ce'u} amounts to (by extensionality) {da zo'u le (or {to'u}) du'u da mamta la dubia cu frica le du'u da mamta la tclsys le ka ceu jetnu} which means {da zo'u gonai da mamta la dubias gi da mamta la tclsys} which amounts eventually to just {le mamta be la dubias na du le mamta be la tclsys} from which (euclid's law) it follows in fact that {la dubias na du la tclsys}. Other cases behave similarly. Roughly, to take on the final case, {roda zo'u ganai da nu makau se citka fau le raljysanmi gi ge de nu makau nenri le lenkytanxe gi de rodytcini da} |