Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:32:41 EDT

In a message dated 10/3/2001 11:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> If it is in the nature of functionhood that for every x there is at most one 
> f of x
> (where f = 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 
> there is nothing intrinsic to the sense of {mamta} that says that something
> can have only one mother. {mamta zei fancu} would be a better selbri,
> 

Well, I suppose that {mamta} does not mean just biological mother and in that 
sense it was a bad choice, although I was using it consistently in that sense 
and thus the uniqueness condition held. I probably should have 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, though only Barbara 
Bush and Hillary Clinto were ever mentioned as relevvant figures).  

<I would not be saying this, if Lojban had a way to use {mamta} as an applied 
function rather than only as a predicate. E.g. if *{mamta la djan} functioned
as a sumti that referred to the mother of John. That seems to be how you
conceive of {le mamta be la djan}, but really that means "x is such that
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 applied 
function. That role may not follow strictly from the literal meaning 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-veridically said to 
be" is suspect loading, "that the speaker is using" is safer, for the speaker 
may use it just because it is the veridical thing to say -- 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!  I have accused you of that view several times and you have almostas 
#often denied it, swearing that you believed that the answer to a question 
was 
#a proposition not a thing.  Now, to make a point you will go back to your 
#true view.  OK.  

I'd be steaming if you'd written that to me! 
Jorge does believe, contrary to your accusations, that the answer to a 
question 
is a proposition not a thing. He does not say anything in the quoted passage 
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 
#la bil) into perfect nonsense (of a highly forbidden kind: we can't use 
#{djuno} for people).>

xorxes does a perfectly fine job of defending himself, so I'll safe comments 
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 operation 
of 
#indirect questions that they generate the proposition with the right critter 
#in for the {kau}.  But then, of course, it is impossible to get the answer 
#wrong, which, alas, goes against our experience: {mi jinvi le du'u maku 
mamta 
#la bil}  guarantees I get it right (so only essay questions from now on). 

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, 
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 semantics
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 then 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.