Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:53:44 +0100

pc:
[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.  

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 reasonably
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 
#sentence in English that is equivalent to one with an interrogative in it? 
#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 can 
#formalize it if need be, but the results will be fairly hairy.  

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. 

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 that
satisfactory.

#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) 

As I said, the analyses aren't rivals. I can't think of a formalization that 
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 
#couple of unexplained notions to boot. It also ignores the role of 
#informal factors in language generally and in questions particularly, apparently.

As so often, I would find your criticisms more compelling if you 
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 
# #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.>)

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 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.  

You have not shown how/that the extension-of analysis gives inappropriate
meanings that are not equivalent to interrogative or q-kau expressions. 
Jorge has attempted to do that, though without having convinced me yet.

#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).  

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 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 

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.  

??

--And.