From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 15 11:56:35 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 18:56:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 55128 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 17:01:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 17:01:13 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.131.19c5c0c (4596)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:01:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <131.19c5c0c.28d4e351@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:01:05 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: set of answers.
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_131.19c5c0c.28d4e351_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_131.19c5c0c.28d4e351_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:10:31 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


> To me it seems as though there are two aspects to answers that need to
> be disentangled. On the one hand, an answer -- call it an 'illocutionary
> answer' is any information that is as relevant as the answerer's knowledg=
e
> allows. On the other hand, an answer -- call it a 'logical answer' --
> is a specification of the extension of a category (or so I think).
> Sometimes a non-l-answer can nevertheless be an i-answer, e.g. "lo ninmu
> (cu klama)" as an answer to "ma klama", in a context where, say, the
> answer has no more relevant information, or where this information is
> sufficient to satisfy the questioner's needs.
>=20
> But my feeling is that interrogatives and qkau involve only logical
> answers -- illocutionary answers are a red herring.
>=20

A nice distinction. I think that we will need to allow illocutionary=20
answers, so as to encompass cases like "believes" and maybe "same" and=20
"different." We'll see what happens as more cases come under the microscop=
e.

<I don't accept that lo'i du'u ma kau broda is the set of answers.>

Does this mean that you don't accept set-of-answers theory-- which I knew=
=20
already -- or that you don't think this is how to say in Lojban "the set o=
f=20
answers to the question{...}? Gee, it looks exactly right to me; what is t=
he=20
problem.

<Of course this way of eliminating qkau is both obvious and correct, but I=
=20
don't
think that for our purposes it counts as eliminating qkau, for the same rea=
son
as other extensional formulations fail.>

But I am not trying to eliminate Q-kau, only to explain it and bring it und=
er=20
rules. It turns out that I can also often eliminate it -- in different way=
s=20
in different cases. So, if what I say is correct, I am content.=20=20

<I think I am now able to offer a halfway decent analysis:

no da ro de poi ke'a cmima la dybiyb ce la tcelsik [-- or cmima of whatever
class of differers --] zo'u
da -extension-of tu'odu'u ce'u mamta de

=3D D frica C tu'odu'u ma kau mamta ce'u
=3D Dubya and Chelsea differ in who their mothers are

Now that can be done more simply as:

no da ro de poi ke'a cmima la dybiyb ce la tcelsik zo'u da mamta de

or indeed

no da mamta ge la dybiyb gi la tcelsik

But the longerwinded method comes into its own in cases like:

=A0 X and Y differ in who gave them what
=3D ... frica tu'odu'u ma kau dunda ma kau ce'u
=3D ... da -extension of tu'odu'u ce'u dunda ce'u de

Admittedly, this "halfway decent analysis" does not use {frica}, but there
was no guarantee that {frica} is logically sound, and hence no guarantee
that frica could be used in a logically explicit formulation.>
Well, all the cases of {frica} I have dealt with come down eventually to=20
some {na du}, so eliminating {frica} seems part of this aprticular game. T=
he=20
rest of you analysis seems to work OK , though I don't yet see that if=20
follows from a general theory (that is, I don't see how to make the right=20
moves yet. I'll practice on a few more).




--part1_131.19c5c0c.28d4e351_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:10:31 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dt=
n.ntl.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">To me it seems as though =
there are two aspects to answers that need to
<BR>be disentangled. On the one hand, an answer -- call it an 'illocutionar=
y
<BR>answer' is any information that is as relevant as the answerer's knowle=
dge
<BR>allows. On the other hand, an answer -- call it a 'logical answer' --
<BR>is a specification of the extension of a category (or so I think).
<BR>Sometimes a non-l-answer can nevertheless be an i-answer, e.g. "lo ninm=
u
<BR>(cu klama)" as an answer to "ma klama", in a context where, say, the
<BR>answer has no more relevant information, or where this information is
<BR>sufficient to satisfy the questioner's needs.
<BR>
<BR>But my feeling is that interrogatives and qkau involve only logical
<BR>answers -- illocutionary answers are a red herring.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>A nice distinction. &nbsp;I think that we will need to allow illocution=
ary answers, so as to encompass cases like "believes" and maybe "same" and =
"different." &nbsp;We'll see what happens as more cases come under the micr=
oscope.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I don't accept that lo'i du'u ma kau broda is the set of answers.&g=
t;
<BR>
<BR>Does this mean that you don't accept set-of-answers theory-- which &nbs=
p;I knew already &nbsp;-- or that you don't think this is how to say in Loj=
ban "the set of answers to the question{...}? &nbsp;Gee, it looks exactly r=
ight to me; what is the problem.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Of course this way of eliminating qkau is both obvious and correct,=
but I don't
<BR>think that for our purposes it counts as eliminating qkau, for the same=
reason
<BR>as other extensional formulations fail.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>But I am not trying to eliminate Q-kau, only to explain it and bring it=
under rules. &nbsp;It turns out that I can also often eliminate it -- in d=
ifferent ways in different cases. &nbsp;So, if what I say is correct, I am =
content. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I think I am now able to offer a halfway decent analysis:
<BR>
<BR>no da ro de poi ke'a cmima la dybiyb ce la tcelsik [-- or cmima of what=
ever
<BR>class of differers --] zo'u
<BR>da -extension-of tu'odu'u ce'u mamta de
<BR>
<BR>=3D D frica C tu'odu'u ma kau mamta ce'u
<BR>=3D Dubya and Chelsea differ in who their mothers are
<BR>
<BR>Now that can be done more simply as:
<BR>
<BR>no da ro de poi ke'a cmima la dybiyb ce la tcelsik zo'u da mamta de
<BR>
<BR>or indeed
<BR>
<BR>no da mamta ge la dybiyb gi la tcelsik
<BR>
<BR>But the longerwinded method comes into its own in cases like:
<BR>
<BR>=A0 X and Y differ in who gave them what
<BR>=3D ... frica tu'odu'u ma kau dunda ma kau ce'u
<BR>=3D ... da -extension of tu'odu'u ce'u dunda ce'u de
<BR>
<BR>Admittedly, this "halfway decent analysis" does not use {frica}, but th=
ere
<BR>was no guarantee that {frica} is logically sound, and hence no guarante=
e
<BR>that frica could be used in a logically explicit formulation.&gt;
<BR> Well, all the cases of {frica} I have dealt with come down eventually =
to some {na du}, so eliminating {frica} seems part of this aprticular game.=
&nbsp;The rest of you analysis seems to work OK , though I don't yet see t=
hat if follows from a general theory (that is, I don't see how to make the =
right moves yet. &nbsp;I'll practice on a few more).
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_131.19c5c0c.28d4e351_boundary--