From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 03 11:32:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 18:32:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 40359 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 18:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 18:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 18:32:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.11b.552db0f (4000) for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11b.552db0f.28ecb3c9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:32:41 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11b.552db0f.28ecb3c9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_11b.552db0f.28ecb3c9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/3/2001 11:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > If it is in the nature of functionhood that for every x there is at most = one=20 > f of x > (where f =3D a function), then {mamta} seems inappropriate as part of a=20 > locution > that expresses the mother-of function (e.g. {le mamta be ce'u}) because=20 > there is nothing intrinsic to the sense of {mamta} that says that somethi= ng > can have only one mother. {mamta zei fancu} would be a better selbri, >=20 Well, I suppose that {mamta} does not mean just biological mother and in th= at=20 sense it was a bad choice, although I was using it consistently in that sen= se=20 and thus the uniqueness condition held. I probably should have used a=20 compound, but, of course, I was taking off from an earlier case (where, com= e=20 to think of it, the uniqueness condition was not needed, though only Barbar= a=20 Bush and Hillary Clinto were ever mentioned as relevvant figures).=20=20 Well, as you are wont to say, that *is* how Lojban uses {mamta} as an appli= ed=20 function. That role may not follow strictly from the literal meaning of th= e=20 terms but it is a role that the expression plays -- look at a clear case li= ke=20 {le sumji be le re li mu}. (I would argue that "is non-veridically said to= =20 be" is suspect loading, "that the speaker is using" is safer, for the speak= er=20 may use it just because it is the veridical thing to say -- and usually doe= s,=20 byt the way).=20=20 <#> In my view {makau} stands for the value that the relationship gives #> when the ce'u place is filled. {makau} will take a value from x3 #> for each value taken from x2 and placed in {ce'u}. #Ahah!=A0 I have accused you of that view several times and you have almost= as=20 #often denied it, swearing that you believed that the answer to a question= =20 was=20 #a proposition not a thing.=A0 Now, to make a point you will go back to you= r=20 #true view.=A0 OK.=A0=20 I'd be steaming if you'd written that to me!=20 Jorge does believe, contrary to your accusations, that the answer to a=20 question=20 is a proposition not a thing. He does not say anything in the quoted passag= e=20 that contradicts this. He says that (loosely) {ma kau} stands for a thing. #But notice that will make {la djan djuno le du'u makau mamta=20 #la bil) into perfect nonsense (of a highly forbidden kind: we can't use=20 #{djuno} for people).> xorxes does a perfectly fine job of defending himself, so I'll safe comment= s=20 for him. Note, by the way, that I did offer him this psoition, which he=20 constantly hovers about and which is prima facie plausible, as an option to= =20 one that was even prima facie false. <#Ah, but maybe what you mean is that somehow it is built into the operatio= n=20 of=20 #indirect questions that they generate the proposition with the right critt= er=20 #in for the {kau}.=A0 But then, of course, it is impossible to get the answ= er=20 #wrong, which, alas, goes against our experience: {mi jinvi le du'u maku=20 mamta=20 #la bil}=A0 guarantees I get it right (so only essay questions from now on)= .=20 A good objection, which, it seems to me, applies to any variety of the set = of answers analysis.> Only if the set has to be correct answers. It does not -- and ought not be= ,=20 for just this reason, as Harrah et. al. showed back in the early 60's. Exactly.=20=20 "I have this opinion as to who are friends of Bill," is about as close as y= ou=20 can come in English. Probably true, but the choice was in response to a particular situation. --part1_11b.552db0f.28ecb3c9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/3/2001 11:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uc= lan.ac.uk writes:


If it is in the nature of= functionhood that for every x there is at most one f of x
(where f =3D a function), then {mamta} seems inappropriate as part of a= locution
that expresses the mother-of function (e.g. {le mamta be ce'u}) because= =20
there is nothing intrinsic to the sense of {mamta} that says that somet= hing
can have only one mother. {mamta zei fancu} would be a better selbri,
or conceivably {pa zei mamta


Well, I suppose that {mamta} does not mean just biological mother and i= n that sense it was a bad choice, although I was using it consistently in t= hat sense and thus the uniqueness condition held.  I probably should h= ave used a compound, but, of course, I was taking off from an earlier case = (where, come to think of it, the uniqueness condition was not needed, thoug= h only Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinto were ever mentioned as relevvant fig= ures).  

<I would not be saying this, if Lojban had a way to use {mamta} as a= n applied=20
function rather than only as a predicate. E.g. if *{mamta la djan} func= tioned
as a sumti that referred to the mother of John. That seems to be how yo= u
conceive of {le mamta be la djan}, but really that means "x is such tha= t
it is nonveridically said to be the case that x mamta la djan", where x= is
not bound by a quantifier.>

Well, as you are wont to say, that *is* how Lojban uses {mamta} as an a= pplied function.  That role may not follow strictly from the literal m= eaning of the terms but it is a role that the expression plays -- look at a= clear case like {le sumji be le re li mu}. (I would argue that "is non-ver= idically said to be" is suspect loading, "that the speaker is using" is saf= er, for the speaker may use it just because it is the veridical thing to sa= y -- and usually does, byt the way).  

<#> In my view {makau} stands for the value that the relationship= gives
#> when the ce'u place is filled. {makau} will take a value from x3
#> for each value taken from x2 and placed in {ce'u}.
#Ahah!=A0 I have accused you of that view several times and you have al= most as=20
#often denied it, swearing that you believed that the answer to a quest= ion was=20
#a proposition not a thing.=A0 Now, to make a point you will go back to= your=20
#true view.=A0 OK.=A0=20

I'd be steaming if you'd written that to me!=20
Jorge does believe, contrary to your accusations, that the answer to a = question=20
is a proposition not a thing. He does not say anything in the quoted pa= ssage=20
that contradicts this. He says that (loosely) {ma kau} stands for a thi= ng.

#But notice that will make {la djan djuno le du'u makau mamta=20
#la bil) into perfect nonsense (of a highly forbidden kind: we can't us= e=20
#{djuno} for people).>

xorxes does a perfectly fine job of defending himself, so I'll safe com= ments for him.  Note, by the way, that I did offer him this psoition, = which he constantly hovers about and which is prima facie plausible, as an = option to one that was even prima facie false.

<#Ah, but maybe what you mean is that somehow it is built into the o= peration of=20
#indirect questions that they generate the proposition with the right c= ritter=20
#in for the {kau}.=A0 But then, of course, it is impossible to get the = answer=20
#wrong, which, alas, goes against our experience: {mi jinvi le du'u mak= u mamta=20
#la bil}=A0 guarantees I get it right (so only essay questions from now= on).=20

A good objection, which, it seems to me, applies to any variety of the = set of
answers analysis.>

Only if the set has to be correct answers.  It does not -- and oug= ht not be, for just this reason, as Harrah et. al. showed back in the early= 60's.

<I don't know what Jorge will say, but I'd suggest that maybe {du'u = ma kau}
gives the set of all answers (including false ones), but that the seman= tics
of {djuno} means that any answer that is se djuno is perforce true. I'm= not
sure how that fits with {mi jinvi le du'u ma kau pendo la bil}, but the= n I'm
not clear about exactly what that is supposed to mean.>

Exactly.  
"I have this opinion as to who are friends of Bill," is about as close = as you can come in English.

<I think it would be very helpful to use Sum rather than Mamta as an= example>

Probably true, but the choice was in response to a particular situation= .


--part1_11b.552db0f.28ecb3c9_boundary--