RE: [lojban] Set of answers encore

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

pc:
> a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
#> > As he noted, taking things makes no allowance for answers like
#> (eliptically)
#> > "nothing," or  {na'i}, which is always a possible answer.  This also
#> > clarifies in what way {makau} is different from {ce'u}, for the latter does
#> > work in an extension-of sort of way.
#>
#> If you mean "djuno lo du'u makau klama" where it is the case that no da
#> klama, then this is covered by the extension-of analysis:
#> {da de poi du'u da -extension-of lodu'u ce'u klama zo'u djuno de}
#> -- where no di klama, da is an empty set, and the knower knows it to
#> be the extension of lodu'u ce'u klama.
#>
#> OK.  This still will not handle {na'i}, but that does not fit into
#> the {djuno} case anyhow.  This is also the clearest explanation of
#> how you mean to use the extensions. I suppose we can allow that if
#> ko'a djuno le du'u x extension of ce'u klama then roda poi cmima x
#> zo'u ko'a djuno le du'u da klama.
#>
#> But clearly this analysis will not work for {ko'a krici lo du'u makau
#> klama}, since here the ma he believes to go may not be a goer at all
#> -- but must be something that CAN go.  That is, the actual extension
#> of {ce'u klama} is irrelevant at this point, but its potential one is not.

Can you give me an example of a scenario that could be appropriately
described as {ko'a krici lo du'u ma kau klama} but not {ko'a djuno
lo du'u ma kau klama}?

If I try to guess your thoughts, I get something like the following.
If John knows that George Washington was the first US president [I'm
embarrassed to suddenly find myself uncertain about who the first
president was! GW? John Adams? Terribly sorry, chaps!], then we can
describe this situation as "John knows who was the first US president",
because his belief happens to be true. But if his belief is not
(necessarily true) -- say if John believes Thos Jefferson was the
first pres, or if I the speaker am not sure who the first pres was --
then we might want to say something like "la djan jinvi/krici
tu'odu'u ma kau tu'o pa moi merko -president". But I see no problem in
logicking this as:

  da zo'u la djan jinvi/krici tu'odu'u da -extension tu'odu'u
  ce'u pa moi merko -president

-- i.e. as not substantively different from the treatment of djuno.

--And.