From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 31 09:01:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 16:01:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 75493 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 15:55:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 15:55:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 15:55:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.84.1aa1c204 (4541) for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <84.1aa1c204.28c10d7b@aol.com> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:55:39 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] A serious but ungeneralized new attempt on Q-kau To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_84.1aa1c204.28c10d7b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_84.1aa1c204.28c10d7b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/30/2001 8:44:31 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > "What I have for dinner depends on what's in the fridge" > "What shirt I wear depends on where I'm going" > I am not sure I understand, so much less agree with, the "explicit", or even the normal, versions in this list. But I want to focus on this last case, since it is pretty clearly ambiguous and I want to see whether I have sorted things out aright. First there is a general claim about how meal planning is do, more or less. I'll get back to that. The second is about what for dinner today or what shirt I will wear today. In that case, it seems clear that it le meal/shirt depends on loi fridge content/le weather, with no indirect question games at all. However, the indirect question form turns up again behind this dependency, as a general rule that now gets applied. So, in one sense, the relative clause versions turn out to be instantiations of the indirect question versions. And that looks right: if the indirect question version involves a set of propositions (or whatevers -- see the extensions to at least {ka}) then the relative clause version brings the {makau} down to a single particular answer. So back to the indirect question version. Each indirect question is a set of answers, propositions that match the paradigm forms in meaning even if not in form. What then of "depends on"? It appears to mean a selection of conditional sentences taking (at least) a subset of the crossproduct of the two sets -- but quite a bit more, I think. "Depends on" says that there is an satisfied subset of this sort, such that if P is "What's in the fridge" set and Q is in the "What's for dinner" set then "If P the Q" may be in the set that makes up the dependency -- and will be if it is non-vacuously true. It is important to note that the connection here is "depends on", not "is determined by", so other factors may enter in -- what I had for lunch, what our guest cannot eat,...., and also does not require that what we eat be from what is in the fridge (if the answer about content is "Nothing," then the answer about dinner may be "canned beans" or "take-out" or "eat out" or...., as indeed it may always be if the contents don't suit). This leaves the question of how to say this. The gismu list is not very suggestive of where to start. Working with the way things change, which I thought a good idea a couple of weeks ago, now seems less advantageous than trying to tackle the issue head-on. The changes are in loi content and le meal, not in the general associations (though I suppose that the associations change some. too -- I may not go for dragon and phoenix every time I have the ingredients, even though the former drawbacks no longer apply -- like I just had it for lunch or yesterday's dinner). --part1_84.1aa1c204.28c10d7b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/30/2001 8:44:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:

"What I have for dinner depends on what's in the fridge"
"What shirt I wear depends on where I'm going"

I am not sure I understand, so much less agree with, the "explicit", or even
the normal, versions in this list. But I want to focus on this last case,
since it is pretty clearly ambiguous and I want to see whether I have sorted
things out aright.
First there is a general claim about how meal planning is do, more or less.
I'll get back to that. The second is about what for dinner today or what
shirt I will wear today. In that case, it seems clear that it le meal/shirt
depends on loi fridge content/le weather, with no indirect question games at
all. However, the indirect question form turns up again behind this
dependency, as a general rule that now gets applied. So, in one sense, the
relative clause versions turn out to be instantiations of the indirect
question versions. And that looks right: if the indirect question version
involves a set of propositions (or whatevers -- see the extensions to at
least {ka}) then the relative clause version brings the {makau} down to a
single particular answer.
So back to the indirect question version. Each indirect question is a set of
answers, propositions that match the paradigm forms in meaning even if not in
form. What then of "depends on"? It appears to mean a selection of
conditional sentences taking (at least) a subset of the crossproduct of the
two sets -- but quite a bit more, I think. "Depends on" says that there is
an satisfied subset of this sort, such that if P is "What's in the fridge"
set and Q is in the "What's for dinner" set then "If P the Q" may be in the
set that makes up the dependency -- and will be if it is non-vacuously true.
It is important to note that the connection here is "depends on", not "is
determined by", so other factors may enter in -- what I had for lunch, what
our guest cannot eat,...., and also does not require that what we eat be from
what is in the fridge (if the answer about content is "Nothing," then the
answer about dinner may be "canned beans" or "take-out" or "eat out" or....,
as indeed it may always be if the contents don't suit).
This leaves the question of how to say this. The gismu list is not very
suggestive of where to start. Working with the way things change, which I
thought a good idea a couple of weeks ago, now seems less advantageous than
trying to tackle the issue head-on. The changes are in loi content and le
meal, not in the general associations (though I suppose that the associations
change some. too -- I may not go for dragon and phoenix every time I have the
ingredients, even though the former drawbacks no longer apply -- like I just
had it for lunch or yesterday's dinner). --part1_84.1aa1c204.28c10d7b_boundary--