Re: [lojban] the set of answers

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la .xorxes. cusku di'e

> {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; ... }

First, would you consider "tu'o du'u la .djan. fa'u la .meris. klama
le zarci" to be a member of that set?

I don't think that you can evaluate 'makau' like that. I think that
the makau gets evaluated within the abstraction whenever the
abstraction is applied according to the meaning of the selbri. You
seem to be evaluating it within the context of the main bridi. IMO,
lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci has a single member, with the 'makau'
staying as it is.

> 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.

I don't think that "le" necessarily means that the speaker knows the
exact identity of the "le"-phrase, just that s knows something
specific enough about it to uniquely identify it for conversation,
such as 'it's the one that is known by Paul' (otherwise we're all in
big trouble :-).

> 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.

I don't see the problem. If indeed x3 of frica is supposed to be a
property of both x1 and x2, then the makau is evaluated once for each
ckaji. "la .dabias. dunli la .tcelsis. le ka [da zo'u] da mamta ce'u"
doesn't imply that they have the same mother. Likewise with "la
.dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka makau mamta ce'u", where the makau
is evaluated only when it is applied to each ckaji, and not once for
the main bridi. In fact, here you could say "la .dabias. frica la
.tcelsis. le ka da mamta ce'u", since they both have a mother and
exactly which isn't important.

Even with your set interpretation, couldn't you say that the member of
the set is "tu'o ka la .barbras. fa'u la .xi,l,ris. mamta ce'u"?

Or, we could reinterpret what the x3 of frica should be and make it
into a relationship: "la .dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka ce'u se
mamta lo na du be le mamta be ce'u".

mu'o mi'e .adam.