From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Oct 05 17:40:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 6 Oct 2001 00:38:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 84402 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2001 00:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 6 Oct 2001 00:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Oct 2001 00:40:35 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.29]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011006004032.FTDZ710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:40:32 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] fancu Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:39:33 +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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Amazing! And here was I thinking that when you were talking about > "The set-of-answers analysis" you were referring to Jorge's analysis > and that you supported it > > Well, you came in late, so you did not see my references to it from > the beginning of the discussion (out of Harrah and Belnap). I didn't come in late to the qkau discussion, only to the le mamta be ce'u discussion. The only Belnap-mentioning message I have is the following one, dating from the second of the Three Great Qkau Threads. > -----Original Message----- > From: Pycyn@aol.com [mailto:Pycyn@aol.com] > Sent: 08 December 1999 16:53 > To: lojban@onelist.com > Subject: Re: [lojban] "What I have for dinner depends on what > > From: Pycyn@aol.com > > What there is on the semantics of indirect questions in the linguistic (or, > better, logic) end of things is an appendix to the stuff on (direct) > questions. The lead names here are Belnap and Harrah and the lead theory is > that a question is the set of its proper answers (full sentences, by and > large, since those are easier for logic to deal with). Some purists > (Montagovians, by and large) hold out for the set of true answers, but that > does not work as well for indirect questions. To be sure, in the case of > "know," we want to partition the set of answers into the true ones, all of > which the knower knows, and the false ones, none of which he even believes > (though he may also not even believe their denials in the case of unknown > potential, but not actual, party goers). On the other hand, with, say, > "wonder" the whole set is involved apparently and the issue just what the > partition is. > By the way, what is the restriction on preds that can take an indirect > question? We can know or wonder also sorts of them, but we can't believe one > (but then how about "You won't believe who I saw yesterday"?) or think or > claim or ..., all of which take regular indirect discourse. > pc ... which I hadn't forgotten, but it was Jorge who showed how to apply this in order to make sense of it for Lojban qkau bridi, principally in the following message: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jorge Llambias [mailto:jjllambias@hotmail.com] > Sent: 01 September 2001 18:49 > To: lojban@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [lojban] the set of answers > > {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is the set {tu'o du'u la djan klama > le zarci; tu'o du'u la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan e > la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan enai la meris klama le > zarci; noda klama le zarci; ... } > > It is not the set {la djan; la djan e la meris; la djan enai la meris; > noda; ... }. > > Then {la pol djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci} simply says > that for some x which is a member of {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci}, > Paul knows x. > > This is not exactly equivalent to "Paul knows who goes to the store". > The English is more specific. To make the Lojban approximate more > to the English, I see two ways: {la pol djuno le du'u makau klama > le zarci} is more specific, but requires the speaker to know too: > the speaker has one of the members of the set of answers in mind, > and claims that Paul knows that answer. The other possibility is: > {la pol djuno lo du'u le mokau cu klama le zarci}. This does not > require the speaker to have a specific member of {lo'i du'u lemokau > cu klama le zarci} in mind. The only problem I see with this is > that for example {tu'o du'u noda klama le zarci} is not a member > of that set. So maybe the conclusion is that we can't be specific > in Lojban in exactly the same way as in English. > > {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} is the set of properties {tu'o ka > la meris mamta ce'u; tu'o ka la barbra mamta ce'u; tu'o ka > la xilris mamta ce'u; ... }. > > So, we can say: > > la dabias dunli la djeb tu'o ka la barbras mamta ce'u > Dubya is equal to Jeb in the property of having Barbara > as mother. > > We can also say: > > la dabias dunli la djeb lo ka makau mamta ce'u > Dubya is equal to Jeb in who their mother is. > > which is a nonspecific form of the former. > > But what about {frica}? We can't exactly claim: > > la dabias frica la tcelsis lo ka makau mamta ce'u > Dubya differs from Chelsea in a property of who their mother is. > > because none of the members of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u} will > satisfy that claim. In fact, we can't expect x3 of frica to be > a property of x1, a property of x2, and at the same time the > difference between x1 and x2. My solution to this conundrum > is to put {lo'e ka makau mamta ce'u} there. This is not any one > member of {lo'i ka makau mamta ce'u}, but rather the archetype. > x1 has one of the members as a property, x2 has one of the members > as property, and the claim is that it is not the same member for > each. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes --And.