RE: [lojban] the set of answers

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Jorge:
> {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; ... }.

Right. Now, the downside to the way you put it is that that can't
possibly be the proper logical formulation, since the list of
possible answers is infinite.

{ro da poi klama ku lo'i du'u da klama} is almost okay but critically
fails to cover {no da klama}. 

Basically, what you seem to be doing is stating the extension of a
category -- the standard way to represent things that have extensions
is du'u/ka + ce'u.

Hence my formulation:

  the-extension-of lo du'u ce'u klama (ce'u)

= lo du'u ma kau klama (ma kau)
 
> 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.

According to me, {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci} is:

da zo'u lo du'u da is-extension-of lo du'u ce'u klama cu ge se djuno
la djan gi jetnu

Or, given that the jetnu is entailed by djuno, just:

da zo'u la djan djuno lo du'u da is-extension-of lo du'u ce'u klama 

To get your weaker version, change "da is-extension-of" to "da cmima
the-extension-of".

> This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store".
> The English is more specific. 

I'm not sure what you're thinkig is the English meaning, but possibly
this covers it:

(le du goi) ko'a zo'u la djan djuno lo du'u ko'a cmima the-extension
of lo du'u ce'u klama

> 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. 

Where's the drawback to this?

Anyway, the speaker doesn't, strictly speaking have to have a
specific answer *in mind*; rather, {le} simply means that its
referent must be identified before the truth-conditions of the
sentence can be determined/evaluated. Normally, though, there's
little point in using {le} unless the speaker has the referent
in mind.

> 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.

I don't yet see what it is that the English says that you think it
hard to render using your method.

> {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.

I think {la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau pendo ce'u}
would mean that they have at least one friend in common,
but not that they have all their friends in common. To
say they've all their friends in common, I suppose you'd
have to say {la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau du lo'i
pendo be ce'u}.

> 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.

... where 
  
 {lo'e ka makau mamta ce'u}
={tu'o ka ce'u ka ma kau mamta ce'u}.

Given the recent low ebb of my mentational faculties, I can't 
currently see how to do a makauless version of dunli and frica,
given the place structures they have. Ignoring the place
structures:

da ro de poi cmima la dybiyb ce la djeb zo'u da mamta de
no da ro de poi cmima la dybiab ce la tcelsik zo'u da mamta de

The use of ka + ce'u with dunli and frica (what Nick calls 'bound ka')
seems to be mainly a kludge to refer anaphorically to two different
antecedents. The ce'u should be replaced with some sort of anaphor.

--And.