Re: [lojban] A serious but ungeneralized new attempt on Q-kau

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

pc:
#Not a good day for vocab work but
#"What I have for dinner depneds on what is in the fridge'  seems to be a 
#properly lexed version of 
#{lenu makau I have for dinner cu some-lujvo-of-{tcini} lo nu makau is in the 
#fridge}
#
#where the selbri requires that each member of the first set have some 
#member(s) of the second set among its necessary, sufficient or 
#high-probability conditions. ({tcini} may be wrong but it is about the only 
#gismu which joins two situations without putting a heavy burden on them.)  At 
#least the sumti are about right, when lexed. 

Is there any reason why the first sumti is "le nu" and the second "lo nu"?
I'd change the first to a plain {ro}:

    {ro nu makau I have for dinner cu some-lujvo-of-{tcini} 
     lo nu makau is in the fridge}

Is that right? And you want it to mean "Each nu ... dinner has among its
occurrence-conditions some nu ... fridge".

And how do we get rid of the makau? Thus? --

   For every x, for every y that is a ka'e nu I have x for dinner: there is some
   z such that y's occurrence conditions include z's being in the fridge.

I can't decide whether that's too broad when compared to the English. 
At any rate, I *think* it is a reasonable approximation, but fails to
capture the relationship between sets/categories. I ought to be more
constructive and offer an alternative analysis, or at least an explanation
of my reservations, but I've been sitting here for twenty minutes trying 
to, when today I have an excess of infinitely more urgent tasks, so this 
will have to wait till I have time to think.

--And.