Subject: RE: set of answers.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:21:19 EDT

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}