[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] djuno lo jei
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban] djuno lo jei
- From: Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:57:53 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=ITTKKutqHbdjgD0IJUg1LK2PnYCTO0Wk+RUnmmxgxLo=; b=l/X5lxipssPRVAwXuNLpqKPfJYUMEvkMk2ldwwLocxrlxmLqbIFN3v8ZC3ggfG/t7N wJBs6S9+LDWyBJN9e4gwVJUvBEyomb8WaPbrhHmi1nZ+/sXOwYVWUMn/FnKVr0E6EINE 9EPFFwCBXRjg7qLaOYaWaUOOOiYT0eT/J0F/4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Zbd2eE19UPJABkgMUd/hvwqRuUT4e8+hrWrd20PnKn5xj8xMuabQCYjNpgY0qt0q+X iKVdshecf4KqJkfh7Ig07VTtiHuc4+0DKMjyI+sDst/THn12x6+BwfQ8eh1naCKMWhFZ clKHpwAHM6yjILYwMleLhGmc3WhmdfYeCoOeg=
- Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
coi rodo
Example 7.3 in chapter 11 of the CLL is:
{mi djuno le jei la frank. cu bebna}
"I know the truth-value of Frank being a fool."
It is noted that this means that "I know whether or not Frank is a fool."
Similarly we have example 7.6:
{mi kucli le jei la frank. cu bebna}
"I am curious about how true it is that Frank is a fool."
These examples seem strange to me. In section 6 of chapter 11, it is
said that "the 'jei' abstraction refers to a number between 0 and 1
inclusive (as distinct from 'ni' abstractions, which are often on
open-ended scales)."
(aside: Could we similarly say:
{mi djuno le ni le pixra cu blanu}
"I know the amount of blueness in the picture"?)
{lo jei la frank. cu bebna} is a truth-value, a number between 0 and 1
inclusive. Let's say Frank is really, truly, absolutely a fool.
Wouldn't it be correct, then, that {lo jei la frank. cu bebna cu du li
pa}? If so, is it then true that {mi djuno li pa}? Suppose also that
Jane is really, trully, absolutely brilliant, so that {lo jei la djein
cu mencre cu du li pa}. Then, is it true that {mi djuno lo jei la jein
cu mencre}? I might not even know Jane! Whether or not we can actually
get the {du li pa}s here, the truth-values of these sentences are
certainly the same, so this last absurdity should be true, right? (A
similar problem happens for {ni} abstractions used in this way, if
they can be used in this way at all.)
I think I would want to translate "I know whether Frank is a fool" as
{mi djuno lo du'u makau jei la frank cu bebna} (similarly for {ni}).
In general, given a sumti in a top-level bridi (certainly not
abstracted, and perhaps there are other ways to get out of the
"top-level", I dunno), and given that we have an identity statement
about that sumti, can we substitute salva veritate in the original
bridi? I feel like we should be able to. For example if {da broda} is
true, and {da du de} is true, then {de broda} should also be true.
ki'e mi'e tomoj
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.