Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> Context: Bill saw Anne and Anne saw Bill and nobody else saw anybody
> else.
>
> Scenarios:
> 1. John knows Bill saw Anne.
> 2. John knows Bill saw Anne and Anne saw Bill.
> 3. John knows Bill saw Anne and Anne saw Bill and nobody else saw anybody
>    else.
>
> EC1. da zo'u la djon djuno tu'odu'u da cmima de poi ke'a -extension
>      tu'odu'u ce'u viska ce'u
>
> EC2. ro da poi ke'a cmima de poi ke'a -extension tu'odu'u ce'u viska ce'u
>      zo'u la djon djuno tu'odu'u da cmima de
>
> EC3. da zo'u la djon djuno tu'odu'u da -extension tu'odu'u ce'u viska ce'u
>
>
> Question 1: Are there any (relevant) defects or problems with (1-3)?

Does {da de zo'u la djon djuno tu'odu'u da cmima de} require John
to understand what membership means? If it does (and I think it
has to), then this would be a defect, because "John knows who saw
who" does not require John to know what it means to be a member.

> Question 2: How does Jorge's lojban rendering of the set-of-answers
> analysis distinguish (1-3)?

Maybe:

SA1. la djon djuno lo du'u makau viska makau

SA2. la djon djuno re du'u makau viska makau

The third I was going to do as:

SA3a. la djon djuno le du'u makau viska makau

(i.e. every one of the relevant answers) but that wouldn't
say that John knows that they are all the relevant answers
there are. Now this:

SA3b. la djon djuno tu'odu'u ri djuno ro jetnu du'u makau viska makau

might solve that problem, but it is hopelessly heavy.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp