Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 00:21:19

la pycyn cusku di'e

><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?

It is only relevant in the context of the long term discussion around
{kau}, not in the immediate context.

><Then {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci}>
><This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store".
>The English is more specific.>
>What is inequivalent here? The ellipsis?

The Lojban version allows: {la pol djuno le du'u da klama le zarci}.

I'm not sure that if all Paul knows is that someone goes to the
store, one can claim in English "Paul knows who goes to the store".

The difference I think comes from "who" being more specific than "ma".

>They differ with
>respect to the members; they make diiferent one true. Where is the 
>problem?

Ok, here is the problem:

ko'a ko'e frica lo ka makau mamta ce'u

means: There is at least one x, member of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u}
such that FRICA(ko'a,ko'e,x) is true.

Show me such an x, then!

You are saying that the scope of the quantifier in
{lo ka makau mamta ce'u} is not the whole bridi, that the x3 is
somehow within an "intensional context". I don't think we can
exclude particular places such as the x3 of frica from the general
rule. We've already had this discussion about sisku, nitcu, et al.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp