From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 04 06:59:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 4 Sep 2001 13:59:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 96652 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2001 13:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Sep 2001 13:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Sep 2001 13:55:19 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:33:29 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:01:54 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:01:34 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] A serious but ungeneralized new attempt on Q-kau Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #Not a good day for vocab work but #"What I have for dinner depneds on what is in the fridge' seems to be a=20 #properly lexed version of=20 #{lenu makau I have for dinner cu some-lujvo-of-{tcini} lo nu makau is in t= he=20 #fridge} # #where the selbri requires that each member of the first set have some=20 #member(s) of the second set among its necessary, sufficient or=20 #high-probability conditions. ({tcini} may be wrong but it is about the onl= y=20 #gismu which joins two situations without putting a heavy burden on them.) = At=20 #least the sumti are about right, when lexed.=20 Is there any reason why the first sumti is "le nu" and the second "lo nu"? I'd change the first to a plain {ro}: {ro nu makau I have for dinner cu some-lujvo-of-{tcini}=20 lo nu makau is in the fridge} Is that right? And you want it to mean "Each nu ... dinner has among its occurrence-conditions some nu ... fridge". And how do we get rid of the makau? Thus? -- For every x, for every y that is a ka'e nu I have x for dinner: there is= some z such that y's occurrence conditions include z's being in the fridge. I can't decide whether that's too broad when compared to the English.=20 At any rate, I *think* it is a reasonable approximation, but fails to capture the relationship between sets/categories. I ought to be more constructive and offer an alternative analysis, or at least an explanation of my reservations, but I've been sitting here for twenty minutes trying=20 to, when today I have an excess of infinitely more urgent tasks, so this=20 will have to wait till I have time to think. --And.