RE: "what i have for dinner"

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx]

> From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
> 
> At 02:50 PM 12/11/99 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> >OK, but wondering decomposes into some kind of trying/wanting with
> >respect to some kind of epistemic state. Whether or not we can find
> >appropriate expressions for those in English, _X wonder P_ nonetheless
> >means "X dweeble that X beeble that P", where "dweeble" is some kind
> >of trying/wanting and "beeble" is some kind of epistemic state.
> 
> I understand "I wonder who came" as "mi kucli le nu makau cmima 
> le'i klama" which I gues puts me in the set membership camp for at 
> least this aspect of indirect questions. 

Not really, becaue you've left the {kau} in, and we'd all agree
that {da klama} = {da cmima le'i klame}.

What we're looking for is a way to say it without {kau}, ideally a
method that generalizes to cover all Q-{kau} uses. For example,
"John knows who came" = "Ax x came iff John knows x came" (a
nongeneralizing method, alas).

> Note that le'i implies that set that I am curious 
> about quite intensional; I have no curiosity about the ants, flies, or 
> bacteria who might have come.
> 
> lojbab (probably sticking his nose in where he cannot possibly 
> understand).

The problem is more merely-difficult than arcane.

BTW, I still haven't properly digested all earlier responses on this
thread; I'm not just ignoring them.

--And.