From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 03 11:32:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 18:32:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 72008 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 18:32:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 18:32:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 18:32:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.be.1ba40c8e (4000) for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:32:44 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_be.1ba40c8e.28ecb3cc_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_be.1ba40c8e.28ecb3cc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/3/2001 9:25:55 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la pycyn cusku di'e >=20 > >{la djan jinvi [fe] le du'u makau mamta la bil}, not {la djan jinvi FI l= e > >du'u makau mamta la bil} The phrase is his actual opinion, just as it i= s=20 > >his > >actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrase with th= e > >same referent in each case. >=20 > I was talking about {fe} as well. >=20 > 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. >=20 > If John has the opinion that Mary is Bill's mother, then > John has an opinion as to who Bill's mother is. >=20 > >So, if it is always right in the one case, it is > >in the other also. This is not a plausible position. >=20 > If what is always right? >=20 What {makau} stands for. Now we are getting down to what is perhaps merely= =20 an unclarity, what you seem to say is that {le du'u makau mamta la bil} is = a=20 set of propositions, in each of which (which suggests there is only one)=20 {makau} is assigned Bill's actual mother. Similarly, {le du'u makau mamta= =20 ce'u} is a function that assigns to each replacement of {ce'u} a (set of)=20 proposition(s) with makau replaced by the actual mother of the replacement= =20 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 yo= u=20 have come over to some version -- I don't yet quite know which -- of=20 set-of-answers theory and welcome aboard. Let's polish our position a bit= =20 together. <><.=A0 The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the > >way) was not arrived at without looking at=A0 these kinds of problems bu= t=20 >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?=A0 Just what have we been arguing about?=A0 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=20 cases like this, where a question was clearly involved but if only true=20 answers constituted the question then you got things which were patently=20 false being true -- like that whatever we believe in question form is=20 correct, the present case (apparently). <>Well, {le du'u ce'u broda} is an object that is nothing like a propositio= n. 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=20 where we end up -- as do all the other {ce'u} forms except {ka} (and, of=20 couse, as does {le mamta be ce'u}, so I'm inclined to favor this pattern).= =20 Ok, so "nothing like" is a bit excessive -- but still a property can not be= =20 asserted nor does it have a truth value, the two central features of a=20 proposition.=20 --part1_be.1ba40c8e.28ecb3cc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/3/2001 9:25:55 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias= @hotmail.com 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, ju= st as it is=20
>his
>actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrase wi= th 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 perha= ps merely an unclarity, what you seem to say is that {le du'u makau mamta l= a 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 th= e 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, the= n 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.

<><.=A0 The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the
> >way) was not arrived at without looking at=A0 these kinds of p= roblems but=20
>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?=A0 Just what have we been arguing about?=A0 Why= the
>explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issu= e?

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 in= to cases like this, where a question was clearly involved but if only true = answers constituted the question then you got things which were patently fa= lse 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 te= lls 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 patte= rn). Ok, so "nothing like" is a bit excessive -- but still a property can n= ot be asserted nor does it have a truth value, the two central features of = a proposition.=20


--part1_be.1ba40c8e.28ecb3cc_boundary--