From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Sep 23 16:35:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 23 Sep 2001 23:34:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 66195 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2001 23:34:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 23 Sep 2001 23:34:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Sep 2001 23:35:04 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.161]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010923233502.BUDF268.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:35:02 +0100 Reply-To: To: "lojban list" Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:34:16 +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: <003301c143b3$448ec9e0$40b5003e@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam: > la .and. cusku di'e > > > The solution does require it if that by definition is a criterion of > > what counts as a solution -- for me to understand qkau I need to > feduce > > it to a logical formula that contains logical elements only of > standard > > sorts. > > How is it that you understand the logical elements of standard sorts? > Maybe q-kau represents an entirely *new* logical element which cannot > be represented by the old logical elements. Maybe saying that you > can't understand q-kau unless it is rephrased with standard logical > elements is like saying that you can't understand predicate logic > unless it is rephrased in propositional logic. You may not be able to > understand it otherwise, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able > rephrase it. I know that the quoted bit makes it sound otherwise, but I have never taken it for granted that 'WH'/qkau does not introduce a novel logical sort. I would find it equally satisfactory and revelatory if it were established that qkau cannot reduce to standard logical sorts and requires a novel logical sort. Formal semanticists have studed wh-interrogatives, but I have not sought out this work partly out of laziness, partly because of the insufferable hassle of microfilm, the medium by which doctoral disserations are distributed through the library system, and partly because I am confident that most of it would go right over my head. I haven't come across a textbook-level treatment of the topic yet. --And.