Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:08:16 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:

> As he noted, taking things makes no allowance for answers like (eliptically)
> "nothing," or  {na'i}, which is always a possible answer.  This also
> clarifies in what way {makau} is different from {ce'u}, for the latter does
> work in an extension-of sort of way.

If you mean "djuno lo du'u makau klama" where it is the case that no da
klama, then this is covered by the extension-of analysis:
{da de poi du'u da -extension-of lodu'u ce'u klama zo'u djuno de}
-- where no di klama, da is an empty set, and the knower knows it to
be the extension of lodu'u ce'u klama.

OK.  This still will not handle {na'i}, but that does not fit into the {djuno} case anyhow.  This is also the clearest explanation of how you mean to use the extensions. I suppose we can allow that if ko'a djuno le du'u x extension of ce'u klama then roda poi cmima x zo'u ko'a djuno le du'u da klama.

But clearly this analysis will not work for {ko'a krici lo du'u makau klama}, since here the ma he believes to go may not be a goer at all -- but must be something that CAN go.  That is, the actual extension of {ce'u klama} is irrelevant at this point, but its potential one is not.