From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:56:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:56:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 3313 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:49:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:49:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:49:16 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907004913.NYWY710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:13 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:48:29 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > {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; ... } > > It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la meris; > noda; ... }. Right. Now, the downside to the way you put it is that that can't possibly be the proper logical formulation, since the list of possible answers is infinite. {ro da poi klama ku lo'i du'u da klama} is almost okay but critically fails to cover {no da klama}. Basically, what you seem to be doing is stating the extension of a category -- the standard way to represent things that have extensions is du'u/ka + ce'u. Hence my formulation: the-extension-of lo du'u ce'u klama (ce'u) = lo du'u ma kau klama (ma kau) > 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. According to me, {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci} is: da zo'u lo du'u da is-extension-of lo du'u ce'u klama cu ge se djuno la djan gi jetnu Or, given that the jetnu is entailed by djuno, just: da zo'u la djan djuno lo du'u da is-extension-of lo du'u ce'u klama To get your weaker version, change "da is-extension-of" to "da cmima the-extension-of". > This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store". > The English is more specific. I'm not sure what you're thinkig is the English meaning, but possibly this covers it: (le du goi) ko'a zo'u la djan djuno lo du'u ko'a cmima the-extension of lo du'u ce'u klama > 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. Where's the drawback to this? Anyway, the speaker doesn't, strictly speaking have to have a specific answer *in mind*; rather, {le} simply means that its referent must be identified before the truth-conditions of the sentence can be determined/evaluated. Normally, though, there's little point in using {le} unless the speaker has the referent in mind. > 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. I don't yet see what it is that the English says that you think it hard to render using your method. > {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; ... }. > > 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. > > 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. I think {la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau pendo ce'u} would mean that they have at least one friend in common, but not that they have all their friends in common. To say they've all their friends in common, I suppose you'd have to say {la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau du lo'i pendo be ce'u}. > 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. 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. > 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. ... where {lo'e ka makau mamta ce'u} ={tu'o ka ce'u ka ma kau mamta ce'u}. Given the recent low ebb of my mentational faculties, I can't currently see how to do a makauless version of dunli and frica, given the place structures they have. Ignoring the place structures: da ro de poi cmima la dybiyb ce la djeb zo'u da mamta de no da ro de poi cmima la dybiab ce la tcelsik zo'u da mamta de The use of ka + ce'u with dunli and frica (what Nick calls 'bound ka') seems to be mainly a kludge to refer anaphorically to two different antecedents. The ce'u should be replaced with some sort of anaphor. --And.