From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 01 11:49:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 1 Sep 2001 18:49:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 28074 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 18:49:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Sep 2001 18:49:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 18:49:29 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:49:29 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.61 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 18:49:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.61] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: the set of answers Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 18:49:29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2001 18:49:29.0539 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4CA0130:01C13316] From: "Jorge Llambias" {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is the set {tu'o du'u la djan klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan e la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan enai la meris klama le zarci; noda klama le zarci; ... } It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la meris; noda; ... }. Then {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci} simply says that for some x which is a member of {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci}, Paul knows x. This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store". The English is more specific. To make the Lojban approximate more to the English, I see two ways: {la pol djuno le du'u makau klama le zarci} is more specific, but requires the speaker to know too: the speaker has one of the members of the set of answers in mind, and claims that Paul knows that answer. The other possibility is: {la pol djuno lo du'u le mokau cu klama le zarci}. This does not require the speaker to have a specific member of {lo'i du'u lemokau cu klama le zarci} in mind. The only problem I see with this is that for example {tu'o du'u noda klama le zarci} is not a member of that set. So maybe the conclusion is that we can't be specific in Lojban in exactly the same way as in English. {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} is the set of properties {tu'o ka la meris mamta ce'u; tu'o ka la barbra mamta ce'u; tu'o ka la xilris mamta ce'u; ... }. So, we can say: la dabias dunli la djeb tu'o ka la barbras mamta ce'u Dubya is equal to Jeb in the property of having Barbara as mother. We can also say: la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau mamta ce'u Dubya is equal to Jeb in who their mother is. which is a nonspecific form of the former. But what about {frica}? We can't exactly claim: la dabias frica la tcelsis lo ka makau mamta ce'u Dubya differs from Chelsea in a property of who their mother is. because none of the members of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} will satisfy that claim. In fact, we can't expect x3 of frica to be a property of x1, a property of x2, and at the same time the difference between x1 and x2. My solution to this conundrum is to put {lo'e ka makau mamta ce'u} there. This is not any one member of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u}, but rather the archetype. x1 has one of the members as a property, x2 has one of the members as property, and the claim is that it is not the same member for each. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp