From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 04 18:01:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 5 Sep 2001 01:01:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 56383 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 00:58:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Sep 2001 00:58:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 00:58:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.147.10bd2c9 (3891) for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:58:26 EDT Subject: Fwd: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_alt_boundary" --part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A direct question is a set of direct answers of the appropriate sort, claims. The notion of an answer involves presuppositions -- that there is a correct answer that is informative, for example. Thus among the answers to "Who murdered the butler?" "Somebody", "Nobody" (well, with qualifications) and "The murderer" will not be included (strictly in each case "... murdered the butler," since the answer is a claim, not a mere name or description). "Nobody" is acceptable as part of another type of possible correct answer, one that denies the presuppositions of the question, in this case that the butler was murdered rather than died of natural causes or misadventure -- or is still alive, for example. The paradigm claims in this set are those that take the model of the question, replacing its question component with an appropriate expression: "Who?" with "Mary Ellen" or "The tweenie" or "His sister" and so on. In addition, are the various semantically equivalent claims, that differ in form but not in content, and such things as the denial of presupposition claims. We shall usually talk about the paradigm forms, but allow also (at least some times -- under Grice's rules) negative forms (Well, it wasn't Stella; we just fond her body over there) and other appropriate matters (some glorking left for now). Asking a question is a directive use of language, the desired behavior of the hearer being to pick an answer out of the set which is the question and assert it. The goal is a claim which is true, a correct answer, at least, sometimes the narrower goal of the right answer, as determined contextually. The sanction on false claims also varies with context -- from frustration to failing grades to execution. There are also penalties for non-answers, like "Someone" or "The murderer" above (or "Nobody" when it is not part of a presupposition rejection). It should follow then that an indirect questions is a set of indirect answers of the appropriate sort, that fit the context, etc. etc. In this case, the appropriate sort seems to be: the same kind of subordinate phrase as the question is. And the paradigms are arrived at in the same way, though what counts as semantically equivalent may vary more (I think). It seems that indirect questions can appear in any kind of abstaction; there are clear examples for at least {du'u}, {ka}, {nu}, and suggestions for others as well. A few examples {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci}. The {lo} because it is at least one proposition in the set, but neither speaker nor hearer need know which one. Since it is {djuno} the whole will be true only if the proposition is for a true claim. This would not apply to {la pol krici lo du'u makau klama le zarci} (which we can't say directly in English) where Paul's belief may be well off base, but the whole claim is true if he believes any proposition in the set at all. {la bab dunli la bil lo ka makau (li xokau?) ni ce'u clano} This will be true just in case there is a property in the set, say {ka li xa pi'e mu ni ce'u clano}, is true for both Bob and Bill, i.e., {li xa pi'e mu ni la bab clano} and {li xa pi'e mu ni la bil clano} are both true. Otherewise, the original is false. Conversely, {la dubia frica la tclsys lo ka makau mamte ce'u} requires at least one sub for {makau} that is true for one, false for the other (in this case, there are two cmene paradigms and countless more as well). Either {ka la babras buc mamte ce'u} or {ka la xilrys klentn mamte ce'u} will do, making a true claim for one, a false for the other. The only case of a {nu} indirect question so far discussed is the complex "What I have for dinner depends upon what is in the fridge," which involves too many other factors for now. A simpler case might be {mi se cinri lo nu makau fasnu} (which has weird problems of its own, but does for a quick runthrough). This will be true of something that is happening (has happened, will happen -- glork a context) interests me, else not. On the issue of the relation between interrogative and relative phrases, it is worth noting that, except for {du'u} with cognitive predicates that demand a proposition, each of these indirect questions has an essentially equivalent direct form {la bab dunli la bil lo ni ce'u clano}, {la dubias frica la tclsys lo mamte be ce'u} (I think {le} is appropriate here, but I'm being cautious), {mi se cinri lo fasnu}. [From another example: {ko'a jdice lo du'u xukau ko'e bebna} {ko'a jdice le jei ko'e bebna} -- a disputed case.] --part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A direct question is a set of direct answers of the appropriate sort, claims.
 The notion of an answer involves presuppositions -- that there is a correct
answer that is informative, for example.  Thus among the answers to "Who
murdered the butler?" "Somebody", "Nobody" (well, with qualifications) and
"The murderer"  will not be included (strictly in each case "... murdered the
butler," since the answer is a claim, not a mere name or description).  
"Nobody" is acceptable as part of another type of possible correct answer,
one that denies the presuppositions of the question, in this case that the
butler was murdered rather than died of natural causes or misadventure -- or
is still alive, for example.

The paradigm claims in this set are those that take the model of the
question, replacing its question component with an appropriate expression:
"Who?" with "Mary Ellen" or "The tweenie" or "His sister" and so on.  In
addition, are the various semantically equivalent claims, that differ in form
but not in content, and such things as the denial of presupposition claims.  
We shall usually talk about the paradigm forms, but allow also (at least some
times -- under Grice's rules) negative forms (Well, it wasn't Stella; we just
fond her body over there) and other appropriate matters (some glorking left
for now).

Asking a question is a directive use of language, the desired behavior of the
hearer being to pick an answer out of the set which is the question and
assert it.  The goal is a claim which is true, a correct answer, at least,
sometimes the narrower goal of the right answer, as determined contextually.  
The sanction on false claims also varies with context -- from frustration to
failing grades to execution.  There are also penalties for non-answers, like
"Someone" or "The murderer" above (or "Nobody" when it is not part of a
presupposition rejection).

It should follow then that an indirect questions is a set of indirect answers
of the appropriate sort, that fit the context, etc. etc.  In this case, the
appropriate sort seems to be: the same kind of subordinate phrase as the
question is.  And the paradigms are
arrived at in the same way, though what counts as semantically equivalent may
vary more (I think).  It seems that indirect questions can appear in any kind
of abstaction; there are clear examples for at least {du'u}, {ka}, {nu}, and
suggestions for others as well.

A few examples
{la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci}.  The {lo} because it is at least
one proposition in the set, but neither speaker nor hearer need know which
one.  Since it is {djuno} the whole will be true only if the proposition is
for a true claim.  This would not apply to {la pol krici lo du'u makau klama
le zarci} (which we can't say directly in English) where Paul's belief may be
well off base, but the whole claim is true if he believes any proposition in
the set at all.

{la bab dunli la bil lo ka makau  (li xokau?) ni ce'u clano} This will be
true just in case there is a property in the set, say {ka li xa pi'e mu ni
ce'u clano}, is true for both Bob and Bill, i.e., {li xa pi'e mu ni la bab
clano} and {li xa pi'e mu ni la bil clano} are both true.  Otherewise, the
original is false.

Conversely, {la dubia frica la tclsys lo ka makau mamte ce'u} requires at
least one sub for {makau} that is true for one, false for the other (in this
case, there are two cmene paradigms and countless more as well).  Either {ka
la babras buc mamte ce'u} or {ka la xilrys klentn mamte ce'u} will do, making
a true claim for one, a false for the other.

The only case of a {nu} indirect question so far discussed is the complex
"What I have for dinner depends upon what is in the fridge,"  which involves
too many other factors for now.  A simpler case might be {mi se cinri lo nu
makau fasnu} (which has weird problems of its own, but does for a quick
runthrough). This will be true of something that is happening (has happened,
will happen -- glork a context) interests me, else not.  

On the issue of the relation between interrogative and relative phrases, it
is worth noting that, except for {du'u} with cognitive predicates that demand
a proposition, each of these indirect questions has an essentially equivalent
direct form
{la bab dunli la bil lo ni ce'u clano}, {la dubias frica la tclsys lo mamte
be ce'u}  (I think {le} is appropriate here, but I'm being cautious), {mi se
cinri lo fasnu}. [From another example: {ko'a jdice lo du'u xukau ko'e bebna}
{ko'a jdice le jei ko'e bebna} -- a disputed case.]
--part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_alt_boundary-- --part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILINZA59-0901204510; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 20:45:10 -0400 Received: from n11.groups.yahoo.com (n11.groups.yahoo.com [216.115.96.61]) by rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA35-0901204446; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 20:44:46 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-10395-999391448-pycyn=aol.com@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.55] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Sep 2001 00:44:08 -0000 X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 17062 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:06 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.116]) by out.newmail.net ; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 03:45:07 +0200 Message-ID: <01a401c13350$ea0b64a0$74b6003e@oemcomputer> To: References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 02:12:36 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit la .xorxes. cusku di'e > {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; ... } First, would you consider "tu'o du'u la .djan. fa'u la .meris. klama le zarci" to be a member of that set? I don't think that you can evaluate 'makau' like that. I think that the makau gets evaluated within the abstraction whenever the abstraction is applied according to the meaning of the selbri. You seem to be evaluating it within the context of the main bridi. IMO, lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci has a single member, with the 'makau' staying as it is. > This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store". > The English is more specific. 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. I don't think that "le" necessarily means that the speaker knows the exact identity of the "le"-phrase, just that s knows something specific enough about it to uniquely identify it for conversation, such as 'it's the one that is known by Paul' (otherwise we're all in big trouble :-). > 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. I don't see the problem. If indeed x3 of frica is supposed to be a property of both x1 and x2, then the makau is evaluated once for each ckaji. "la .dabias. dunli la .tcelsis. le ka [da zo'u] da mamta ce'u" doesn't imply that they have the same mother. Likewise with "la .dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka makau mamta ce'u", where the makau is evaluated only when it is applied to each ckaji, and not once for the main bridi. In fact, here you could say "la .dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka da mamta ce'u", since they both have a mother and exactly which isn't important. Even with your set interpretation, couldn't you say that the member of the set is "tu'o ka la .barbras. fa'u la .xi,l,ris. mamta ce'u"? Or, we could reinterpret what the x3 of frica should be and make it into a relationship: "la .dabias. frica la .tcelsis. le ka ce'u se mamta lo na du be le mamta be ce'u". mu'o mi'e .adam. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --part1_147.10bd2c9.28c6d2b2_boundary--