Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 10:37:26 EDT

In a message dated 9/1/2001 7:21:49 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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".
> 

I'm not sure it does: Would {da} count as an answerr to {ma klama le zarci}? 
I don't think so; there is a relevance/informativeness condition on answers, 
sure. {le klama be le zarci} also won't do.

<

   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.>

I don't think that {frica} creates an intensional context in the way that 
{nitcu} and maybe {sisku) do, so I don't have that out (which do apply in 
some cases, however, or else we get needless falsehoods to easily). But, 
suppose that the mothers involved are ko'i and ko'o. Then the set much 
contain {ka ko'i mamte ce'u} and {ka ko'o mamte ce'u} and both of these work, 
applying to one and not the other.