Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:52:38 EDT

In a message dated 9/10/2001 12:03:19 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> These objections would carry a lot more weight if there was a rival 
> analysis to the Ka Extension analysis. Then you could compare the
> rival analyses as to how well they stand up under those and other
> objections. 
> 
> But as things stand, there is no rival analysis. The set of answers analysis
> is intuitive and attractive, but it is informal, and nobody has shown how 
> it 
> helps to provide an explicit Q-kauless logical and/or lojban equivalent
> 

I wasn't aware that there was a need for a qkauless sentence in Lojban that 
was equivalent to one with qkau in it. Can you do an interogative-free 
sentence in English that is equivalent to one with an interrogative in it? 
Provide general rules for creating same?
I am sorry if the set-of-answers explanation is inadequately formal. I can 
formalize it if need be, but the results will be fairly hairy. It ddoes have 
the advantage of being a coherent and correct single explication of all the 
interrogatives, in which priperties it seems to be unique, for the rival 
(which may just be a quasi-formal restatement) seems so far to be neither 
coherent nor correct and to involve a couple of unexplained notions to boot.  
It also ignores the role of informal factors in language generally and in 
questions particularly, apparently.

<#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.  

I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all ordered
n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u  in the ka. So the ce'u are not
restricted.>
You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted:
(<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.>)
My point is that it is not and further that, even if it were, the extension 
of {makau} is even more restricted -- and implicitly rather than explicitly.
As for notions of "the extension of ka," it is not yet clear what role these 
are to play, since the various formulations involving them do not yet explain 
anything and tend to appear irrelevant to the issues at hand. the extension 
of a property is, indeed, the set of ordered n-tuples that satisfy the 
property. But that tells us precious little -- if anything -- about the 
function of {ka makau broda} (or even {ka ce'u broda}) in a sentence. Nor 
does it seem open to suggesting a general answer which will fit with the use 
of these expressions in connection with the various selbri with which they 
may occur. The set-of-answers explicaton, together with the range of gadri 
and quantifiers seems able to deal with these issues (and, if worked out in 
the particular formalism and suggests, probably could guide and's version 
toward adequacy and accuracy).  

<#> 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).>

But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is not 
obviously so -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so at 
all.