From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 01 15:55:42 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 1 Sep 2001 22:55:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 7337 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 22:55:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Sep 2001 22:55:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 22:55:38 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.158.485568 (4069)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <158.485568.28c2c162@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:55:30 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_158.485568.28c2c162_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_158.485568.28c2c162_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/1/2001 1:51:06 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:



> {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; ... }
>=20



I know that And has come up with some suggestion about what {tu'o} means. =
I=20
have not read it carefully but did not find what I understood of it on skim=
=20
either plausible or even intelligible within the context of standard Lojban=
.=20=20
But then, it is 1) unlikely that anyhting that gets labelled as "null=20
operand/non-specific/elliptical number" is going to be intelligible or=20
plausible and 2) clear that {tu'o} should have some use or other, vaguel as=
a=20
quantifier. I just don't understand what And's version is nor how it is=20
justified.=20=20
So, I don't exactly undertand what you say here. But let me talk aloud for=
=20
you to comment on. {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is a set (check, {lo'i=
}=20
says that) of propositions ({du'u}) that are just like {makau klama la=20
zarci} except for having a real sumti in place of {makau}. The {tu'o} at=20
least makes the critters inot names for these propositions, whatever else i=
t=20
does -- and {le} would do as well since there is only one of each and=20
everyone knows what it is. Unless (but this seems a lot of work for {tu'o}=
=20
to do and odd work at that for a quantifier) it wants to add all the others=
=20
of different form but identical meaning (transworld). That is, to include =
in=20
all the {le zarci se klama makau} and whatever else might fit.=20=20

<It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la meris;
noda; ... }.>
Clearly not, since none of these is a proposition or anything like one.=20
Relevance?

<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.>

Yes. That is he knows a proposition that identifies someone as a storegoer=
=20
and (courtesy of {djuno}) that proposition is true.

<This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store".
The English is more specific.>
How so? Neither the speaker nor the hearer needs to know which proposition=
=20
Paul knows and there may be any number that are true. What is inequivalent=
=20
here? The ellipsis?

<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.>
Clearly not required by the English nor the Lojban -- indeed probably false=
=20
in the usual case where this example comes up (I don't know, but Paul does)=
.

<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.>
But Paul may not know the goer under any predication, simply a name --=20
suppose an ambiguous one that could be male or female, without ethnic flavo=
r,=20
etc. This is clearly a different question from the original. Maybe, if yo=
u=20
could explain in what way the English is specific and the Lojban is not, it=
=20
would help. I don't see it.

<{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; ... }.>
Well, it is a set of properties all right; again I am unsure what {tu'o} m=
ay=20
be doing here. Could it be the cause of the lack of specificity (whatever=
=20
that is) in the earlier case, when {le} was possible? I find it helpful to=
=20
remember that properties are functions, from {ce'u}-fillers to truth values=
.=20=20

<So, we can say:

=A0 =A0 la dabias dunli la djeb tu'o ka la barbras mamta ce'u
=A0 =A0 Dubya is equal to Jeb in the property of having Barbara
=A0 =A0 as mother>
Yes, assuming {tu'o} doesn't differ in unpleasant ways from {le} here: bot=
h=20
propositions evaluate true.

<We can also say:

=A0 =A0 la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau mamta ce'u
=A0 =A0 Dubya is equal to Jeb in who their mother is.

which is a nonspecific form of the former.>
Yes. As I have said, I have come around to the point of view that {ka ...=
=20
makau ... ce'u} picks out the right {makau}-replacement for each=20
{ce'u}-replacement. But I think that needs some detail work yet.

<But what about {frica}? We can't exactly claim:

=A0 =A0 la dabias frica la tcelsis lo ka makau mamta ce'u
=A0 =A0 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. >
But of course, it is just the fact that different members work for the=20
different people that makes them different in this respect, just as the fac=
t=20
that the same member worked for both made them the same in that respect. =
=20
What else could same and different in respect mean? {lo} -- and {le}, for=
=20
that matter (and Lord knows about {tu'o} -- can be plural. They differ wit=
h=20
respect to the members; they make diiferent one true. Where is the problem=
?


<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.>
If it is an archetype but not a member, then it won't help, since it won't=
=20
make either one into a true or false proposition and so won't distinguish=20
them (Aristotle again).

<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>=20=20
Yes, this is what "differ in respect" means and so what {frica fi lo ka ...=
=20
makau ... ce'u} means.








--part1_158.485568.28c2c162_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 9/1/2001 1:51:06 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
<BR>jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">{lo'i du'u makau klama le=
zarci} is the set {tu'o du'u la djan klama
<BR>le zarci; tu'o du'u la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan e
<BR>la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan enai la meris klama le
<BR>zarci; noda klama le zarci; ... }
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>I know that And has come up with some suggestion about what {tu'o} mean=
s. &nbsp;I=20
<BR>have not read it carefully but did not find what I understood of it on =
skim=20
<BR>either plausible or even intelligible within the context of standard Lo=
jban. &nbsp;
<BR>But then, it is 1) unlikely that anyhting that gets labelled as "null=20
<BR>operand/non-specific/elliptical number" is going to be intelligible or=
=20
<BR>plausible and 2) clear that {tu'o} should have some use or other, vague=
l as a=20
<BR>quantifier. &nbsp;I just don't understand what And's version is nor how=
it is=20
<BR>justified. &nbsp;
<BR>So, I don't exactly undertand what you say here. &nbsp;But let me talk =
aloud for=20
<BR>you to comment on. &nbsp;{lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is a set (che=
ck, {lo'i}=20
<BR>says that) &nbsp;of propositions ({du'u}) that are just like {makau kla=
ma la=20
<BR>zarci} except for having a real sumti in place of {makau}. &nbsp;The {t=
u'o} at=20
<BR>least makes the critters inot names for these propositions, whatever el=
se it=20
<BR>does -- and {le} would do as well since there is only one of each and=20
<BR>everyone knows what it is. &nbsp;Unless (but this seems a lot of work f=
or {tu'o}=20
<BR>to do and odd work at that for a quantifier) it wants to add all the ot=
hers=20
<BR>of different form but identical meaning (transworld). &nbsp;That is, to=
include in=20
<BR>all the {le zarci se klama makau} and whatever else might fit. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la mer=
is;
<BR>noda; ... }.&gt;
<BR>Clearly not, since none of these is a proposition or anything like one.=
=20
<BR>Relevance?
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Then {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci} simply says
<BR>that for some x which is a member of {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci},
<BR>Paul knows x.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Yes. &nbsp;That is he knows a proposition that identifies someone as a =
storegoer=20
<BR>and (courtesy of {djuno}) that proposition is true.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store=
".
<BR>The English is more specific.&gt;
<BR>How so? &nbsp;Neither the speaker nor the hearer needs to know which pr=
oposition=20
<BR>Paul knows and there may be any number that are true. &nbsp;What is ine=
quivalent=20
<BR>here? &nbsp;The ellipsis?
<BR>
<BR>&lt;To make the Lojban approximate more
<BR>to the English, I see two ways: {la pol djuno le du'u makau klama
<BR>le zarci} is more specific, but requires the speaker to know too:
<BR>the speaker has one of the members of the set of answers in mind,
<BR>and claims that Paul knows that answer.&gt;
<BR>Clearly not required by the English nor the Lojban -- indeed probably f=
alse=20
<BR>in the usual case where this example comes up (I don't know, but Paul d=
oes).
<BR>
<BR> &lt;The other possibility is:
<BR>{la pol djuno lo du'u le mokau cu klama le zarci}. This does not
<BR>require the speaker to have a specific member of {lo'i du'u lemokau
<BR>cu klama le zarci} in mind. The only problem I see with this is
<BR>that for example {tu'o du'u noda klama le zarci} is not a member
<BR>of that set. So maybe the conclusion is that we can't be specific
<BR>in Lojban in exactly the same way as in English.&gt;
<BR>But Paul may not know the goer under any predication, simply a name --=
=20
<BR>suppose an ambiguous one that could be male or female, without ethnic f=
lavor,=20
<BR>etc. &nbsp;This is clearly a different question from the original. &nbs=
p;Maybe, if you=20
<BR>could explain in what way the English is specific and the Lojban is not=
, it=20
<BR>would help. &nbsp;I don't see it.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;{lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} is the set of properties {tu'o ka
<BR>la meris mamta ce'u; tu'o ka la barbra mamta ce'u; tu'o ka
<BR>la xilris mamta ce'u; ... }.&gt;
<BR>Well, &nbsp;it is a set of properties all right; again I am unsure what=
{tu'o} may=20
<BR>be doing here. &nbsp;Could it be the cause of the lack of specificity (=
whatever=20
<BR>that is) in the earlier case, when {le} was possible? &nbsp;I find it h=
elpful to=20
<BR>remember that properties are functions, from {ce'u}-fillers to truth va=
lues. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;So, we can say:
<BR>
<BR>=A0 =A0 la dabias dunli la djeb tu'o ka la barbras mamta ce'u
<BR>=A0 =A0 Dubya is equal to Jeb in the property of having Barbara
<BR>=A0 =A0 as mother&gt;
<BR>Yes, assuming {tu'o} doesn't differ in unpleasant ways from {le} here: =
&nbsp;both=20
<BR>propositions evaluate true.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;We can also say:
<BR>
<BR>=A0 =A0 la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau mamta ce'u
<BR>=A0 =A0 Dubya is equal to Jeb in who their mother is.
<BR>
<BR>which is a nonspecific form of the former.&gt;
<BR>Yes. &nbsp;As I have said, I have come around to the point of view that=
{ka ...=20
<BR>makau ... ce'u} picks out the right {makau}-replacement for each=20
<BR>{ce'u}-replacement. &nbsp;But I think that needs some detail work yet.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;But what about {frica}? We can't exactly claim:
<BR>
<BR>=A0 =A0 la dabias frica la tcelsis lo ka makau mamta ce'u
<BR>=A0 =A0 Dubya differs from Chelsea in a property of who their mother is=
.
<BR>
<BR>because none of the members of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} will
<BR>satisfy that claim. In fact, we can't expect x3 of frica to be
<BR>a property of x1, a property of x2, and at the same time the
<BR>difference between x1 and x2. &gt;
<BR>But of course, it is just the fact that different members work for the=
=20
<BR>different people that makes them different in this respect, just as the=
fact=20
<BR>that the same member worked for both made them the same in that respect=
. &nbsp;
<BR>What else could same and different in respect mean? &nbsp;{lo} -- and {=
le}, for=20
<BR>that matter (and Lord knows about {tu'o} -- can be plural. &nbsp;They d=
iffer with=20
<BR>respect to the members; they make diiferent one true. &nbsp;Where is th=
e problem?
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>&lt;My solution to this conundrum
<BR>is to put {lo'e ka makau mamta ce'u} there. This is not any one
<BR>member of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u}, but rather the archetype.&gt;
<BR>If it is an archetype but not a member, then it won't help, since it wo=
n't=20
<BR>make either one into a true or false proposition and so won't distingui=
sh=20
<BR>them (Aristotle again).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;x1 has one of the members as a property, x2 has one of the members
<BR>as property, and the claim is that it is not the same member for
<BR>each&gt; &nbsp;
<BR>Yes, this is what "differ in respect" means and so what {frica fi lo ka=
...=20
<BR>makau ... ce'u} means.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_158.485568.28c2c162_boundary--