From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 11 05:48:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 11 Sep 2001 12:48:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 31779 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2001 12:48:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Sep 2001 12:48:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2001 12:48:07 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:24:24 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:54:02 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:53:44 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: #> These objections would carry a lot more weight if there was a rival=20 #> 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.=20 #>=20 #> But as things stand, there is no rival analysis. The set of answers anal= ysis #> is intuitive and attractive, but it is informal, and nobody has shown ho= w=20 #> it=20 #> 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=20 #that was equivalent to one with qkau in it.=20=20 Evidently I was mistaken to think we were all engaged in the same programme of enquiry, then. AFAI am concernced, the aim is to find a logical representation for Q-kau sentences. If that turns out to be reasona= bly elegant, then we could then drop qkau. If it turns out to be a bit clunky then we would know what qkau expands to logically. #Can you do an interogative-free=20 #sentence in English that is equivalent to one with an interrogative in it?= =20 #Provide general rules for creating same? Do I need to point out that English does not claim to be a logical language= ? English is not Loglan. #I am sorry if the set-of-answers explanation is inadequately formal. I ca= n=20 #formalize it if need be, but the results will be fairly hairy.=20=20 So long as you can formalize it so that it can be said in Lojban, I don't think I'll find it too hairy.=20 To avoid you wasting time, I'd better make clear that Jorge defined the set of answers extensionally (i.e. by listing them all). I don't consider t= hat satisfactory. #It ddoes have the advantage of being a coherent and correct single=20 #explication of all the interrogatives, in which priperties it seems to be= =20 #unique, for the rival (which may just be a quasi-formal restatement)=20 As I said, the analyses aren't rivals. I can't think of a formalization tha= t=20 comes closer to approximating the set of answers analysis than the extensional analysis does, so in that sense it is a quasi-formal restatement, and if that's what you think too then your other comments below are hard to understand #seems so far to be neither coherent nor correct and to involve a=20 #couple of unexplained notions to boot. It also ignores the role of=20 #informal factors in language generally and in questions particularly, appa= rently. As so often, I would find your criticisms more compelling if you=20 succeeded in articulating their substance. I quite often happen to agree with you, but I don't remember ever having been persuaded by you. # <#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- since = it=20 # #has to generate *answers* and not every possible value will apply=20 # #(indeed, generally most will not). Further, unlike the "bound" {ce'u},= =20=20 # #the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=20=20 # # 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: # ( 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.>) I say "Y ranges freely". Y is "the makau ce'u". You say "the makau ce'u is restricted too". I say "I think this is incorrect". You reply by quoting me saying "[the makau ce'u] ranges freely". Or have the wires got crossed somewhere? # My point is that it is not and further that, even if it were, the extens= ion=20 #of {makau} is even more restricted -- and implicitly rather than explicitl= y. #As for notions of "the extension of ka," it is not yet clear what role the= se=20 #are to play, since the various formulations involving them do not yet expl= ain=20 #anything and tend to appear irrelevant to the issues at hand. the extensi= on=20 #of a property is, indeed, the set of ordered n-tuples that satisfy the=20 #property. But that tells us precious little -- if anything -- about the=20 #function of {ka makau broda} (or even {ka ce'u broda}) in a sentence. No= r=20 #does it seem open to suggesting a general answer which will fit with the u= se=20 #of these expressions in connection with the various selbri with which they= =20 #may occur.=20=20 You have not shown how/that the extension-of analysis gives inappropriate meanings that are not equivalent to interrogative or q-kau expressions.=20 Jorge has attempted to do that, though without having convinced me yet. #The set-of-answers explicaton, together with the range of gadri=20 #and quantifiers seems able to deal with these issues (and, if worked out i= n=20 #the particular formalism and suggests, probably could guide and's version= =20 #toward adequacy and accuracy).=20=20 Great if it happens. If I could have formalized the set of answers analysis I would have. # <#> 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 restricte= d # #> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in th= e # #> 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=20 # obviously so=20 So what are you telling me? That my Insight was not an obvious one...? ;-) # -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so at all. = =20 ?? --And.