Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/22/2001 4:43:32 PM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.com writes:

In a message dated 9/22/2001 1:25:58 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:

da zo'u la djan jinvi/krici tu'odu'u da -extension tu'odu'u
ce'u pa moi merko -president

-- i.e. as not substantively different from the treatment of djuno.

Not so:  the corresponding analysis would be
{da de poi du'u da extension of ledu'u ce'u pamoi merko president zo'u la djan jinvi de}
However, in working the details of this out, I see that it does work as well as well in this case as in the {djuno} one.  I keep forgetting that when you say "extension" you mean  the propositions that such-and-such is the extension, not the set itself (I think this ahs been a problem for a while -- back to whether the things that go in for {makau} are answers).  I'll try to remember this is the extension-claim theory, not the extension theory, which is very different.

But then next morning, looking at it again, I see that it is very different, for I doubt that John (even this one) even thinks about "the extension of " some property. In fact, I doubt that most people, who use indirect question all the time, would even understand the locution.  So, if the property is within the scope of the believing,  where, because of intensioonality, it has to be that property and not something incidentally equivalent to it, then I would say that it was very rarely the case that anyone had an opinion about who the first American President was.  But, of course, the other version, which moves the property outside still works ok.