From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 11 14:04:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 11 Sep 2001 21:04:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 12367 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2001 20:51:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2001 20:51:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2001 20:48:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.168.bb822d (3981) for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <168.bb822d.28cfcc3f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:21:19 EDT Subject: RE: set of answers. To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_168.bb822d.28cfcc3f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_168.bb822d.28cfcc3f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, so suppose we get away from sets and stick with the predicates we actually have. I take it that a direct question, {ma broda}, is covertly of the form {ko xusra lo du'u makau broda}. Suppose the directee says {la b broda}. Has he answered the question, i.e., is it the case that {la'e lu la b broda li'u du'u makau broda}, that is is {le (better {to'u}) du'u la b broda cu du'u makau broda}? The answer to this is not transparent. As noted, it often fails to be the case (though not always by any means) that {da broda} and {noda broda} fail, and {lo broda cu broda} almost always fails. In a given case, others may also fail (stones if the questions supposes an agent, long dead folks if the questions supposes a contemporary, and so on). But now at least, like And, I have {makau} universal -- though only the ones that actually fit the property are significant. Note that this is still not {ce'u} for the property in question still has {makau} in its description, is still a property of expressions, not of things yet, unlike the {ce'u} cases (so far at least). In at least some cases we can carry out the elimination of indirect questions pretty thoroughly: {la dubias frica la tclsys le du'u maka mamta ce'u} amounts to (by extensionality) {da zo'u le (or {to'u}) du'u da mamta la dubia cu frica le du'u da mamta la tclsys le ka ceu jetnu} which means {da zo'u gonai da mamta la dubias gi da mamta la tclsys} which amounts eventually to just {le mamta be la dubias na du le mamta be la tclsys} from which (euclid's law) it follows in fact that {la dubias na du la tclsys}. Other cases behave similarly. Roughly, to take on the final case, {roda zo'u ganai da nu makau se citka fau le raljysanmi gi ge de nu makau nenri le lenkytanxe gi de rodytcini da} --part1_168.bb822d.28cfcc3f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, so suppose we get away from sets and stick with the predicates we
actually have.  I take it that a direct question, {ma broda}, is covertly of
the form {ko xusra lo du'u makau broda}.  Suppose the directee says {la b
broda}.  Has he answered the question, i.e., is it the case that {la'e lu la
b broda li'u du'u makau broda}, that is  is
{le (better {to'u}) du'u la b broda cu du'u makau broda}?  The answer to this
is not transparent.  As noted, it often fails to be the case (though not
always by any means) that {da broda} and {noda broda} fail, and {lo broda cu
broda} almost always fails.  In a given case, others may also fail (stones if
the questions supposes an agent, long dead folks if the questions supposes a
contemporary, and so on).
But now at least, like And, I have {makau} universal -- though only the ones
that actually fit the property are significant.  Note that this is still not
{ce'u} for the property in question still has {makau} in its description, is
still a property of expressions, not of things yet, unlike the {ce'u} cases
(so far at least).  
In at least some cases we can carry out the elimination of indirect questions
pretty thoroughly:  {la dubias frica la tclsys le du'u maka mamta ce'u}
amounts to (by extensionality) {da zo'u le (or {to'u}) du'u da mamta la dubia
cu frica le du'u da mamta la tclsys le ka ceu jetnu} which means {da zo'u
gonai da mamta la dubias gi da mamta la tclsys} which amounts eventually to
just {le mamta be la dubias na du le mamta be la tclsys} from which (euclid's
law) it follows in fact that {la dubias na du la tclsys}.  Other cases behave
similarly.  
Roughly, to take on the final case, {roda zo'u ganai da nu makau se citka fau
le raljysanmi  gi ge de nu makau nenri le lenkytanxe gi de rodytcini da} --part1_168.bb822d.28cfcc3f_boundary--