RE: [lojban] the set of answers

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

Adam:
> la .and. cusku di'e
> 
> > The solution does require it if that by definition is a criterion of
> > what counts as a solution -- for me to understand qkau I need to
> feduce
> > it to a logical formula that contains logical elements only of
> standard
> > sorts.
> 
> How is it that you understand the logical elements of standard sorts?
> Maybe q-kau represents an entirely *new* logical element which cannot
> be represented by the old logical elements. Maybe saying that you
> can't understand q-kau unless it is rephrased with standard logical
> elements is like saying that you can't understand predicate logic
> unless it is rephrased in propositional logic. You may not be able to
> understand it otherwise, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able
> rephrase it.

I know that the quoted bit makes it sound otherwise, but I have never
taken it for granted that 'WH'/qkau does not introduce a novel logical
sort. I would find it equally satisfactory and revelatory if it were 
established that qkau cannot reduce to standard logical sorts and 
requires a novel logical sort.

Formal semanticists have studed wh-interrogatives, but I have not sought
out this work partly out of laziness, partly because of the insufferable
hassle of microfilm, the medium by which doctoral disserations are 
distributed through the library system, and partly because I am confident 
that most of it would go right over my head. I haven't come across a
textbook-level treatment of the topic yet.

--And.