Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:55:30 EDT

In a message dated 9/1/2001 1:51:06 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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} means. I 
have not read it carefully but did not find what I understood of it on skim 
either plausible or even intelligible within the context of standard Lojban.  
But then, it is 1) unlikely that anyhting that gets labelled as "null 
operand/non-specific/elliptical number" is going to be intelligible or 
plausible and 2) clear that {tu'o} should have some use or other, vaguel asa 
quantifier. I just don't understand what And's version is nor how it is 
justified.  
So, I don't exactly undertand what you say here. But let me talk aloud for 
you to comment on. {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is a set (check, {lo'i} 
says that) of propositions ({du'u}) that are just like {makau klama la 
zarci} except for having a real sumti in place of {makau}. The {tu'o} at 
least makes the critters inot names for these propositions, whatever else it 
does -- and {le} would do as well since there is only one of each and 
everyone knows what it is. Unless (but this seems a lot of work for {tu'o} 
to do and odd work at that for a quantifier) it wants to add all the others 
of different form but identical meaning (transworld). That is, to include in 
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 meris;
noda; ... }.>
Clearly not, since none of these is a proposition or anything like one. 
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 
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 
Paul knows and there may be any number that are true. What is inequivalent 
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 
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 -- 
suppose an ambiguous one that could be male or female, without ethnic flavor, 
etc. This is clearly a different question from the original. Maybe, if you 
could explain in what way the English is specific and the Lojban is not, it 
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 
be doing here. Could it be the cause of the lack of specificity (whatever 
that is) in the earlier case, when {le} was possible? I find it helpful to 
remember that properties are functions, from {ce'u}-fillers to truth values.  

<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>
Yes, assuming {tu'o} doesn't differ in unpleasant ways from {le} here: both 
propositions evaluate true.

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

<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. >
But of course, it is just the fact that different members work for the 
different people that makes them different in this respect, just as the fact 
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 
that matter (and Lord knows about {tu'o} -- can be plural. They differ with 
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 
make either one into a true or false proposition and so won't distinguish 
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 ... 
makau ... ce'u} means.