Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:08:45 EDT

In a message dated 9/10/2001 1:57:48 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> but in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard
> usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami Y}.
> X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in our
> exsmples??) and Y ranges freely. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is
> underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So
> although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restricted
> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in the
> same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form). Maybe
> something like
> 
> la dybiyb la tcelsik frica lo du'u ce'u goi fo'o zo'u ce'u -extension
> lo du'u ce'u mamta fo'o
> 
> 

Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- since it has 
to generate *answers* and not every possible value will apply (indeed, 
generally most will not). Further, unlike the "bound" {ce'u}, the 
restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt. 
My objects to counting {makau} as {ce'u} are two: 1) it overlooks the 
relation to the other interrogatives ({xukau, mokau, ...} which behave in the 
same way, 2) it gives a less useful spin on the interpretation of {makau} 
expressions. Although the difference between a function and a set is nominal 
in this case, thinking of a set of answers and pulling items out it, makes 
for clearer discussions than thinking about a function on a function does.