In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:10:01 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
1. What is the difference, if any, between I don't think that ultimately there is any, though the steps to that common core are different. I take this, by the way, as a positive pointfor set-of-answers analysis. <2. What is the rationale (apart from prior usage) for using ce'u rather than ma kau? Your sentence (under your interpretation of it) could be englished as "D and T differ in terms of which of them is big", which in turns suggests a lojbanization of: {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ma kau barda}> I don't think so, but I'll work on it. I think that (and I know this will get me into trouble with stuff I've said earlier) the English you give can be put as the Lojban you give for it, that it has to have {ce'u} rather than {makau} because it has to guarantee that both Jumbo and Tom Thumb get in and it is at least plausible that Tom Thumb might not make the cutas an acceptable answer to "Who is big?" Of course, they would stilldiffer -- one is an answer and the other is not -- but the different kindsof negations mean that further steps I like might be cut off ("they differin their size", for example, or "Jumbo is large xor Tan Thumb is"). <3. I can follow your story about the essentially unbound nature of {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda} but it seems to me that on your story, {la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami ma kau} means "there is some value of ma kau such that lo ka ce'u prami that value is true for la djan xor la bil". ... In which case, it might just as well be said as: {da zo'u la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami da}> Yes, I think I did that somewhere along the line, but, if not, it certainly works just fine (as it should). "There is something such that John andBill differ in their love for it." <This then eradicates the construction where qkau and ce'u necessarily cooccur, and leaves the way open to my strategy of replacing core qkau (in core interrogative contexts) with "da -extension-of tu'odu'u ce'u".> Good, glad to help you out. <. The LE > is in {la dubia frica la tclsys le mamta be ce'u}, which is claimed to work > like the {frica} example above, only giving different mothers rather than > different truth values ultimately. Who made that claim? I don't recall having seen it before.> I did, in some communications with xorxes and then in one summary or another (I can't find it now -- comes the Elephant? -- oh here it is: Set of Answers on 9/5 -- but I also see that araizen used it earlier, not quite tothe same point, but relatedly). The point here is that if W and Chelsea differ in who their mothers are, they also differ in their mothers: {... le mamta be ce'u} <. This > example also points to a possible (but largely unexplored) question of > whether {ce'u} in subordinate phrases in a structure may be taken as part of > the overall structure or have to be evaluated separately before the overall > structure is revealed. The intended reading here is clearly that they may be > taken into the overall structure; it is unclear whether the other order of > evaluations would give a different result. It would. {lo du'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ce'u mabla} (i) the function whereby X talks about Y being mabla (ii) the property of talking about mablahood Lojban's general rules of scope resolve this ambiguity: the ce'u is bound in the localmost bridi. Hence the Lojban means (ii), not (i). To say (i): {lo du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ko'a mabla}> Thanks. Another reason then to keep {makau} and {ce'u} separate, since I think {makau} has a broader scope. |