From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 22 11:24:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 18:23:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 98846 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 18:23:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 18:23:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 18:24:28 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.83]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010922182426.PFWV710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:24:26 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:23:43 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <12f.49781c7.28d4e344@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > 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. Can you give me an example of a scenario that could be appropriately described as {ko'a krici lo du'u ma kau klama} but not {ko'a djuno lo du'u ma kau klama}? If I try to guess your thoughts, I get something like the following. If John knows that George Washington was the first US president [I'm embarrassed to suddenly find myself uncertain about who the first president was! GW? John Adams? Terribly sorry, chaps!], then we can describe this situation as "John knows who was the first US president", because his belief happens to be true. But if his belief is not (necessarily true) -- say if John believes Thos Jefferson was the first pres, or if I the speaker am not sure who the first pres was -- then we might want to say something like "la djan jinvi/krici tu'odu'u ma kau tu'o pa moi merko -president". But I see no problem in logicking this as: da zo'u la djan jinvi/krici tu'odu'u da -extension tu'odu'u ce'u pa moi merko -president -- i.e. as not substantively different from the treatment of djuno. --And.