From pycyn@aol.com Sat Oct 06 17:52:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 00:52:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 18441 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 00:52:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 00:52:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 00:52:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.49.11f89c4d (4553) for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <49.11f89c4d.28f10131@aol.com> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:52:01 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_49.11f89c4d.28f10131_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_49.11f89c4d.28f10131_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/6/2001 6:50:56 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Could you give an example of this? Would not those that are > equivalent always be rephraseable so as to fit the matrix? >=20 Yeah, but they might not be the one he knows, thinks of, etc. etc. The=20 intensional problem that extension-claim theory has. Almost every answer=20 actually has an extension-claim equivalent, which somebody might think of, = so=20 set-of answers covers that case, but is not restricted to it. We are ready= =20 for a wide range of possibilities in each case, not just the one. <{noda=20 >kalma >le zarci},=A0 for example, But I have always insisted that this answer _is_ included. It is always the one that makes the extension analysis fail, because it is not part of the extension of {le ka ce'u klama le zarci}.> Well, surely knowing that the empty set is the extension of {le ka ce'u kla= ma=20 le zarci} would count -- except for the intension problem. That claim=20 should be in the set of answers. <>and -- perhaps related to that last bit -- {na'i}, That one I would probably exclude. Could you give an example?> Classics: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" when you either don't have = a=20 wife or have never beaten her. "How do you know the distance to the moon?"= =20 when you don't know it. And so on.=20 Very often "Who" questions have a presupposition that someone does whatever= .=20=20 When the answer is {noda broda}, it is also -- and more forcefully -- {na'i= }.=20 When dealing with And, it turns out better not to use {le}, since he tends= =20 to make much of its idiosyncrasies -- which can be useful, but can also get= =20 you into trouble (who all has to agree on what is referred to and how=20 detailed must that agreement be?)=20 functions, >rather than taking the whole as a function to indirect questions. I now think it has to be the other way around. {makau} is a dependent variable and {ce'u} the independent one, in a manner of speaking.> For the {dunli} -{frica} cases, it works nicely the way you had it before. = =20 The new way is trickier on those cases, though it still comes down to the=20 same sentence eventually. I flipflop back and forth and the Logic texts ha= ve=20 no guidelines at all. --part1_49.11f89c4d.28f10131_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/6/2001 6:50:56 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias= @hotmail.com writes:

Could you give an example= of this? Would not those that are
equivalent always be rephraseable so as to fit the matrix?

Yeah, but they might not be the one he knows, thinks of, etc. etc. &nbs= p;The intensional problem that extension-claim theory has. Almost every ans= wer actually has an extension-claim equivalent, which somebody might think = of, so set-of answers covers that case, but is not restricted to it. = We are ready for a wide range of possibilities in each case, not just the o= ne.

<{noda=20
>kalma
>le zarci},=A0 for example,

But I have always insisted that this answer _is_ included. It is
always the one that makes the extension analysis fail, because it
is not part of the extension of {le ka ce'u klama le zarci}.>

Well, surely knowing that the empty set is the extension of {le ka ce'u= klama le zarci} would count -- except for the intension problem. &nb= sp;That claim should be in the set of answers.

<>and -- perhaps related to that last bit -- {na'i},

That one I would probably exclude. Could you give an example?>

Classics: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" when you either don't h= ave a wife or have never beaten her. "How do you know the distance to= the moon?" when you don't know it. And so on.=20

<I don't see how this follows from the purported omissions.
I think I tend to rely on the specificity of {le} to select
the acceptable answers, but in any case I am not at all sure
that my analysis is complete.>

Very often "Who" questions have a presupposition that someone does what= ever. When the answer is {noda broda}, it is also -- and more forcefu= lly -- {na'i}. When dealing with And, it turns out better not to use = {le}, since he tends to make much of its idiosyncrasies -- which can be use= ful, but can also get you into trouble (who all has to agree on what is ref= erred to and how detailed must that agreement be?)=20

<an array of propositional=20
>functions,
>rather than taking the whole as a function to indirect questions.

I now think it has to be the other way around. {makau} is a
dependent variable and {ce'u} the independent one, in a manner
of speaking.>

For the {dunli} -{frica} cases, it works nicely the way you had it befo= re. The new way is trickier on those cases, though it still comes dow= n to the same sentence eventually. I flipflop back and forth and the = Logic texts have no guidelines at all.

--part1_49.11f89c4d.28f10131_boundary--