From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 15 11:56:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 18:56:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 54738 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 17:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.12f.49781c7 (4596) for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <12f.49781c7.28d4e344@aol.com> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:00:52 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12f.49781c7.28d4e344_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_12f.49781c7.28d4e344_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:08:16 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > > As he noted, taking things makes no allowance for answers like > (eliptically) > > "nothing," or {na'i}, which is always a possible answer. This also > > clarifies in what way {makau} is different from {ce'u}, for the latter > does > > work in an extension-of sort of way. > > If you mean "djuno lo du'u makau klama" where it is the case that no da > klama, then this is covered by the extension-of analysis: > {da de poi du'u da -extension-of lodu'u ce'u klama zo'u djuno de} > -- where no di klama, da is an empty set, and the knower knows it to > be the extension of lodu'u ce'u klama. > OK. This still will not handle {na'i}, but that does not fit into the {djuno} case anyhow. This is also the clearest explanation of how you mean to use the extensions. I suppose we can allow that if ko'a djuno le du'u x extension of ce'u klama then roda poi cmima x zo'u ko'a djuno le du'u da klama. But clearly this analysis will not work for {ko'a krici lo du'u makau klama}, since here the ma he believes to go may not be a goer at all -- but must be something that CAN go. That is, the actual extension of {ce'u klama} is irrelevant at this point, but its potential one is not. --part1_12f.49781c7.28d4e344_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:08:16 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:



> As he noted, taking things makes no allowance for answers like (eliptically)
> "nothing," or  {na'i}, which is always a possible answer.  This also
> clarifies in what way {makau} is different from {ce'u}, for the latter does
> work in an extension-of sort of way.

If you mean "djuno lo du'u makau klama" where it is the case that no da
klama, then this is covered by the extension-of analysis:
{da de poi du'u da -extension-of lodu'u ce'u klama zo'u djuno de}
-- where no di klama, da is an empty set, and the knower knows it to
be the extension of lodu'u ce'u klama.



OK.  This still will not handle {na'i}, but that does not fit into the {djuno} case anyhow.  This is also the clearest explanation of how you mean to use the extensions. I suppose we can allow that if ko'a djuno le du'u x extension of ce'u klama then roda poi cmima x zo'u ko'a djuno le du'u da klama.

But clearly this analysis will not work for {ko'a krici lo du'u makau klama}, since here the ma he believes to go may not be a goer at all -- but must be something that CAN go.  That is, the actual extension of {ce'u klama} is irrelevant at this point, but its potential one is not. --part1_12f.49781c7.28d4e344_boundary--