In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:09:01 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
Not a problem. From my perspective, the two sides of a logical language are OK, I like that thought (though I doubt that crystal clarity can be achieved). <If you mean that you can't see my formalizations as formalizations of the set of answers analysis, then that's fair enough, and you need either to accept my formalization and drop the set of answers analysis or else to seek another formalization. If you mean that my formalizations are not semantically (truthconditionally, let's say) adequate formalizations of qkau/interrogative sentences, then this should be proved by citing instances of truthconditional nonequivalence.> Hard to do until we look at all the contexts. It does not seem to work on {ko'a krici le du'u makau klama}, since who ko'a believes to go may not indeed go. I suppose there is a patch for this, though I don't know what it is. We will look at other cases as they arise. <I sort of understand now roughly what your general position is, but I still can't make sense of it. For "Dubya and Chelsea differ in who their mother is" (or its proper logical or Lojban equivalent), I don't see either why "who" is restricted or why "their" is unrestricted> "Who" is restricted because the only usable arguments are human females of the present and recent past and..., "their" is of course restricted, but the {ce'u} that emerges from it is not, since they differ with respect to the whole function -- the difference only emergees in the particular case, but the function runs through its entire set of arguments. <If you can find my original statement of the analysis, you'll see that those caveats applied to "depend" and "differ" qkau constructions. That's why the message header said it was an ungeneralized analysis. I haven't issued any assurances that the analysis is correct, but it's the only formalization proposed so far that hasn't been shown to be inadequate.> OK. Well, set of answers works smoothly for those two cases, as outlined elsewhere in the message being quoted. Of course, you can argue it is not formalized, but it is up to trivial objections. And it is done within a general system. I don't claim that it is correct beyond the implicit one in pursuing it, but I haven't seen functioning objections to it yet either. As for a plausible case of it working, what do you want? The normal strategy we employ in our discussions is to present reasons why an analysis fails. Analyses that resist falsification are accepted as correct.> The reason why analysis fails is that it does not provide a correct analysis (one that works out right according to some pretest sense of what the analysis should do) of a case. So, we have to look at cases. So far set-of-answers is ahead on points, working for {dunli, frica, djuno, krici} and the menu problem, while extension works well for {djuno}, not for {krici}, and questionably for the rest. <I'm surprised at this objection. Do you really think that non-ma questions can't be restructured so that they contain a ma? And even if your answer were Yes, would there not equally be a case for a ce'u counterpart of non-ma q-words?> Of course we can reformulate to just use {ma}, though provbing that we had exactly the same thing as before might be difficult without already having a general solution to the Q-kau issue. And we can, of course, introduce lambda operators of higher levels. The point is just that I don't see the need to if the solution doesn't require it -- and I don't see it doing so. <The fact that working > woith both of these as {ce'u} presents you with a logical problem, suggests > to me that the assumption you are working with (that they both are {ce'u}) is > likely wrong. If you're talking about the two variables in the "differ in who they love" construction, then I do not assume that the "they" element is a ce'u.> Ah. What is it then that it gives you a two-ce'u problem? |