In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:36:36 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
Please read again what I wrote. {makau} stands for the value. Well, I did try to give you a rational position on the issue, even if it is one that I think is wrong. <{mi jinvi le du'u maku >mamta >la bil} guarantees I get it right (so only essay questions from now on). I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. {la djan jinvi le du'u makau mamta la bil} (to avoid first person issues) means that John has an opinion as to who is Bill's mother. {makau} there stands for whoever it is that John thinks Bill's mother is>. {la djan jinvi [fe] le du'u makau mamta la bil}, not {la djan jinvi FI le du'u makau mamta la bil} The phrase is his actual opinion, just asit is his actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrasewith the same referent in each case. So, if it is always right in the one case, it is in the other also. This is not a plausible position. <. The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the >way) was not arrived at without looking at these kinds of problems but was >rather what people were forced to to deal with them. Sorry, I don't understand how this affects the ce'u-makau case.> Ignoration elenchi? Just what have we been arguing about? Why the explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issue? <>"Is mother of," {le ka/du'u ce'u mamta ce'u}, is a relation and, indeed, a >function, as a set of ordered pairs --though the order is reversed here, so >{le du'u ce'u se mamta ce'u} . There are many functions for which it is >somewhat unnatural to think of the corresponding relation (sum, product, >and >the like, for example) Unnatural or not, Lojban thinks of them as such (see sumji, pilji).> Of course, it also has then in regular function fashion in MEX ({su'i, pi'i}). Unnatural and done don't usually conflict in Logic, I've found. So, yes, your way of doing it is not too farfetched, except that it won't work for indirect questions and thus won't work for functions when indirect questions are involved. <It sounds wrong to me. I keep getting the feeling that it's the wrong type. I just can't treat {le broda be ce'u} as an object that is nothing like a broda.> Well, {le du'u ce'u broda} is an object that is nothing like a proposition. |