Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:32:44 EDT

In a message dated 10/3/2001 9:25:55 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> la pycyn cusku di'e
> 
> >{la djan jinvi [fe] le du'u makau mamta la bil}, not {la djan jinvi FI le
> >du'u makau mamta la bil} The phrase is his actual opinion, just as it is 
> >his
> >actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrase with the
> >same referent in each case.
> 
> I was talking about {fe} as well.
> 
> If {la djan jinvi le du'u la meris mamta la bil}, then
> {la djan jinvi le du'u makau mamta la bil}. Both are independent
> of whether or not {la meris mamta la bil} is true.
> 
> If John has the opinion that Mary is Bill's mother, then
> John has an opinion as to who Bill's mother is.
> 
> >So, if it is always right in the one case, it is
> >in the other also. This is not a plausible position.
> 
> If what is always right?
> 

What {makau} stands for. Now we are getting down to what is perhaps merely 
an unclarity, what you seem to say is that {le du'u makau mamta la bil} is a 
set of propositions, in each of which (which suggests there is only one) 
{makau} is assigned Bill's actual mother. Similarly, {le du'u makau mamta 
ce'u} is a function that assigns to each replacement of {ce'u} a (set of) 
proposition(s) with makau replaced by the actual mother of the replacement 
for {ce'u}. You said
"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}."

Now, if you did not mean that to mean what I have taken it to mean, then you 
have come over to some version -- I don't yet quite know which -- of 
set-of-answers theory and welcome aboard. Let's polish our position a bit 
together.

<><.  The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the
> >way) was not arrived at without looking at  these kinds of problems but 
>was
> >rather what people were forced to to deal with them.
>
>Sorry, I don't understand how this affects the ce'u-makau case.>
>
>Ignoration elenchi?  Just what have we been arguing about?  Why the
>explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issue?

I'm not saying it's not dealing with the issue. I'm saying I don't
understand how it affects it, how it gives a contradiction.>

The original set-of-answers theory used only correct answers but ran into 
cases like this, where a question was clearly involved but if only true 
answers constituted the question then you got things which were patently 
false being true -- like that whatever we believe in question form is 
correct, the present case (apparently).

<>Well, {le du'u ce'u broda} is an object that is nothing like a proposition.

I thought you were ok with the notion that propositions were
0-argument properties. But I don't mind using {ka} instead
of {du'u} if you prefer.>

Actually, I find {du'u} much more illuminating with {ce'u}, since it tells us 
where we end up -- as do all the other {ce'u} forms except {ka} (and, of 
couse, as does {le mamta be ce'u}, so I'm inclined to favor this pattern). 
Ok, so "nothing like" is a bit excessive -- but still a property can not be 
asserted nor does it have a truth value, the two central features of a 
proposition.