Re: [lojban] fancu

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/3/2001 9:25:55 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

la pycyn cusku di'e

>{la djan jinvi [fe] le du'u makau mamta la bil}, not {la djan jinviFI le
>du'u makau mamta la bil}  The phrase is his actual opinion, just as it is
>his
>actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrase with the
>same referent in each case.

I was talking about {fe} as well.

If {la djan jinvi le du'u la meris mamta la bil}, then
{la djan jinvi le du'u makau mamta la bil}. Both are independent
of whether or not {la meris mamta la bil} is true.

If John has the opinion that Mary is Bill's mother, then
John has an opinion as to who Bill's mother is.

>So, if it is always right in the one case, it is
>in the other also.  This is not a plausible position.

If what is always right?

What {makau} stands for.  Now we are getting down to what is perhaps merely an unclarity, what you seem to say is that {le du'u makau mamta la bil} is a set of propositions, in each of which (which suggests there is only one) {makau} is assigned Bill's actual mother.  Similarly, {le du'u makau mamta ce'u} is a function that assigns to each replacement of {ce'u} a (set of) proposition(s) with makau replaced by the actual mother of the replacement for {ce'u}.  You said
"In my view {makau} stands for the value that the relationship gives
when the ce'u place is filled. {makau} will take a value from x3
for each value taken from x2 and placed in {ce'u}."

Now, if you did not mean that to mean what I have taken it to mean, then you have come over to some version -- I don't yet quite know which -- of set-of-answers theory and welcome aboard.  Let's polish our position abit together.

<><.  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?  Whythe
>explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issue?

I'm not saying it's not dealing with the issue. I'm saying I don't
understand how it affects it, how it gives a contradiction.>

The original set-of-answers theory used only correct answers but ran into cases like this, where a question was clearly involved but if only true answers constituted the question then you got things which were patently false being true -- like that whatever we believe in question form is correct, the present case (apparently).

<>Well, {le du'u ce'u broda} is an object that is nothing like a proposition.

I thought you were ok with the notion that propositions were
0-argument properties. But I don't mind using {ka} instead
of {du'u} if you prefer.>

Actually, I find {du'u} much more illuminating with {ce'u}, since it tells us where we end up -- as do all the other {ce'u} forms except {ka} (and, of couse, as does {le mamta be ce'u}, so I'm inclined to favor this pattern). Ok, so "nothing like" is a bit excessive -- but still a property can not be asserted nor does it have a truth value, the two central features of a proposition.