From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 01 15:55:42 2001 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 Clearly not, since none of these is a proposition or anything like one.=20 Relevance? Yes. That is he knows a proposition that identifies someone as a storegoer= =20 and (courtesy of {djuno}) that proposition is true. 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? 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)= . 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 Yes, assuming {tu'o} doesn't differ in unpleasant ways from {le} here: bot= h=20 propositions evaluate true. 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 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= ? 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). =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 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; ... }




I know that And has come up with some suggestion about what {tu'o} mean= s.  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 Lo= jban.  
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, vague= l as a=20
quantifier.  I just don't understand what And's version is nor how= it is=20
justified.  
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 (che= ck, {lo'i}=20
says that)  of propositions ({du'u}) that are just like {makau kla= ma la=20
zarci} except for having a real sumti in place of {makau}.  The {t= u'o} at=20
least makes the critters inot names for these propositions, whatever el= se it=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 f= or {tu'o}=20
to do and odd work at that for a quantifier) it wants to add all the ot= hers=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.  

<It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la mer= is;
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 pr= oposition=20
Paul knows and there may be any number that are true.  What is ine= quivalent=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 f= alse=20
in the usual case where this example comes up (I don't know, but Paul d= oes).

<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 f= lavor,=20
etc.  This is clearly a different question from the original. &nbs= p;Maybe, if you=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} may=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 h= elpful to=20
remember that properties are functions, from {ce'u}-fillers to truth va= lues.  

<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: =  both=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= fact=20
that the same member worked for both made them the same in that respect= .  
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 d= iffer with=20
respect to the members; they make diiferent one true.  Where is th= e 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 wo= n't=20
make either one into a true or false proposition and so won't distingui= sh=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>  
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--