the set of answers

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

{lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is the set {tu'o du'u la djan klama
le zarci; tu'o du'u la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan e
la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan enai la meris klama le
zarci; noda klama le zarci; ... }

It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la meris;
noda; ... }.

Then {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci} simply says
that for some x which is a member of {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci},
Paul knows x.

This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store".
The English is more specific. To make the Lojban approximate more
to the English, I see two ways: {la pol djuno le du'u makau klama
le zarci} is more specific, but requires the speaker to know too:
the speaker has one of the members of the set of answers in mind,
and claims that Paul knows that answer. The other possibility is:
{la pol djuno lo du'u le mokau cu klama le zarci}. This does not
require the speaker to have a specific member of {lo'i du'u lemokau
cu klama le zarci} in mind. The only problem I see with this is
that for example {tu'o du'u noda klama le zarci} is not a member
of that set. So maybe the conclusion is that we can't be specific
in Lojban in exactly the same way as in English.

{lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} is the set of properties {tu'o ka
la meris mamta ce'u; tu'o ka la barbra mamta ce'u; tu'o ka
la xilris mamta ce'u; ... }.

So, we can say:

   la dabias dunli la djeb tu'o ka la barbras mamta ce'u
   Dubya is equal to Jeb in the property of having Barbara
   as mother.

We can also say:

   la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau mamta ce'u
   Dubya is equal to Jeb in who their mother is.

which is a nonspecific form of the former.

But what about {frica}? We can't exactly claim:

   la dabias frica la tcelsis lo ka makau mamta ce'u
   Dubya differs from Chelsea in a property of who their mother is.

because none of the members of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} will
satisfy that claim. In fact, we can't expect x3 of frica to be
a property of x1, a property of x2, and at the same time the
difference between x1 and x2. My solution to this conundrum
is to put {lo'e ka makau mamta ce'u} there. This is not any one
member of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u}, but rather the archetype.
x1 has one of the members as a property, x2 has one of the members
as property, and the claim is that it is not the same member for
each.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp