[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: djuno lo jei
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban] Re: djuno lo jei
- From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:25:15 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=rRvwkHrfUybDYJzXfRl9apUItDXLYmTsw3UcAaXO6SU=; b=lXjrB/y0NjeO+GgpAh49ju6LnRzJSqFMZdbXUiOztYzRjXcjILrEApZ1Lsk4CmPRXW X9oIbE89NnXXKed8vsrsq8MZ6Vq80qeZGKMAGAy0/FOaiKiG/Ueh7LkmPIMAVDneYwO5 iKZ7reOQguEaLot2m5Y2k+TSEA+at0r9+LYrU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=r/8b9Sa+zJzgXMif3OnL7TTuDEVPvFTzsajrvb9QSfLmC6ezDZROOMs6gixG4d5CxL 64sMEqW8uGFF1c7co4r2UahHcOZWryfEuiF5g1AQ9MBpGGcMb74JGPrqG81hYjvRKSaf DkicNsKUwgwmkSV/gfNlEzYzaM4RhYijto1lw=
- In-reply-to: <bff283140910262257y1ac700b7n9b9db26392633f78@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <bff283140910262257y1ac700b7n9b9db26392633f78@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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}
Yes, that corresponds to the direct question:
ma jei la frank cu bebna
What is the truth value of Frank being a fool?
but normally one would just ask:
xu la frank bebna
Is Frank a fool?
So a more straightforward way for the indirect question is:
mi djuno lo du'u xu kau la frank cu bebna
I know whether frank is a fool.
> 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 would say yes.
> 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.
How about putting it this way:
if {ko'a broda} is true, and {ko'a du ko'e} is true, then {ko'e broda}
should also be true.
The problem with using "da" and "de" is that they are variables bound
by quantifiers, and so your way of putting it could mean different
things depending on what scope you have in mind for the quantifiers.
Probably you are thinking of "ro da ro de zo'u" with scope over your
whole English statement, which is a weird mix. If we are just
considering the Lojban, we have:
su'o da zo'u da broda
Something is a broda.
su'o da su'o de zo'u da du de
Something is equal to something.
su'o de zo'u de broda
Something is a broda.
If the first one is true, so is the third one, since they say exactly
the same thing, just using different variables, and the second one is
trivially true but irrelevant.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
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.