Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:18:58 EDT

In a message dated 10/5/2001 7:42:00 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<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:

> > 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.>

Thank you for the review. xorxes piece here got lost in the shuffle 
somewhere, although it or something from it was a trigger to one thread in 
all this. xorxes' view is very close to the classic set-of-answers theory, 
missing only a few minor points. 1) He resttricts the propsotions to those 
that directly fit the matrix rather than allowing thoae that are equivalent 
one way or another (grammatically or by external reference), 2) he omits 
forms that are not of this structure at all but still are answers {noda kalma 
le zarci}, for example, and -- perhaps related to that last bit -- {na'i}, 
so 3) he fails to account for the restrictions that presuppositions put on 
acceptable answers. 

On the mixed indirect question/ lambda variable case, xorxes clearly 
instantiates the {makau} first, getting an array of propositional functions, 
rather than taking the whole as a function to indirect questions. Theory 
pulls both ways on this: {makau} seems to have longer scope that {ce'u}, 
which ought to have minimum scope, but the presuppositions on the question 
often depend upon what is in the other places. Perhaps this can be handled 
backwards, by having the replacement of {makau} restrict the range of the 
remaining {ce'u} or perhaps the range is unrestricted and only relevant ones 
ever play a role. 

As for teh problems that arise, {la djan djuno lo du'u makau klama le zarci} 
differs from the English "John knows who went to the store" more in implicit 
completeness than anything else. The Lojban would be true if John knew of 
even one simple answer, {la djoun klama le zarci} say. It does not imply 
that, for everyone who goes to the store, John knows that s/he does, John 
know who all goes to the store, to be specific. Whether the English can bear 
this weaker interpretation ("knows who some are that go") is unclear, though 
not implausible. It is not clear how Lojban would say the latter, except 
perhaps by using {ro} in the question. Note that {djun ro lo du'u makau} 
will not work, since some du'u makau are false. (There may be some Gricean 
hanky-pank going on here, as there often is around quantifiers.)

The problem with {dunli} and {frica} is just a matter of incomplete analysis. 
W and Jeb are equal in le du'u makau mamta ce'u, because for every value m 
of {makau} the value of the function le du'u m mamta ce'u for W is equivalent 
to the value for Jeb -- both false except for m= Barbara Bush, and then both 
true. W and Chelsea on the other hand are different in the same place 
because for at least one value (in fact for two) the functions return 
inequivalent propsoitions, one true and the other false. 

At this point we skip over the next step, {frica le mamta be ce'u} which 
works in exactly the same way, with a relevantly different notion of 
nonequivalence (non-identity).