Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:00:52 EDT

In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:08:16 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.