From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 13 08:04:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 16:04:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 68709 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 16:04:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 16:04:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 16:04:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.13d.9578085 (3956) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <13d.9578085.299be89c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:44 EST Subject: Question, direct, indirect and spurious (was Lojban Tautologies and half a dozen To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13d.9578085.299be89c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_13d.9578085.299be89c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1.{ko'a cusku lu xu la djan klama li'u} or more precisely 2. {ko'a te preti fi lu xu la djan klama li'u} Now, can we say 3. {ko'a te preti fi le du'u xukau la djan klama} and mean the same as above -- up to the words used?This would be an indirect question in a literal sense. It is clear that we cannot say -- under even the present usages, let alone the new proposals -- 4. {ko'a cusku le du'u xukau la djan klama} without meaning that ko'a said which way it was with John's coming -- that he did or he didn't or he n'd it (for some n in the range of possible truth values in this case). That is, this is no longer an indiect question at all, but an indirect answer, just as the corresponding form is in English:"He said whether John came." If 3 does mean essentially the same as 2, but 1 and 4 are not so related, what does thjis say about the notion of "indirect question" and the way we use them in Lojban. The obvious suggestion is that there is an underlying thing expressed by {le du'u qkau bridi} that is treated in different ways by different predicates: with {preti} it picks out the question part, with {cusku} an answer, with {djuno} a correct answer, and so on. One suggestion as to what that common thing might be is found in the usual theory that a question is a set of answers. {preti} picks on the whole set (or,rather, the set of propositions derived from it), most other predicates -- that make sense with propositions -- pick an unspecified member of the set, sometime requiring that it be true, but otherwise not being precise. The clearest connection is that 3 can be meaningfully connected (it may even be a definition) with 5. {ko'a cpedu le jetnu du'u xokau la djan klama} linking asking questions with other kinds of askings, as should be done. If this line of reasoning is carried on, it appears that the portion after {du'u} in these expressions, the {qkau bridi}, refers to a class of sentences, which {du'u} converts to a class of propositions and which {le} (or whatever -- I have used {le} throughout, but suspect that it is almost always the wrong article -- we'll take that up later) and the superordinate predicate chhose various possible extractions from. [OK, it's later. One possible story about whether you have questions or answers would be done by the article: {lo'e},say, for questions, {lo} for answers. I think this has as much merit and greater possibilities as the vocabulary item separation. But ti does not affect the argument of the moment.] What, then, is an "indirect question" that is not subordinated to article, {du'u} and some predicate, a free-floating {qkau}? One obvious suggestion is that it is a direct question, the one obtained by dropping the {kau}. After all, {kau} was introduced to avoid the ambiguity that arose if one used a q in a {le du'u} clause, but that is not a problem outside such a context and the {kau} is superfluous. So, it is just the set of answers presented for your selection. Another suggestion -- less obvious from abstract considerations but fairly natural for English speakers -- is that it is a disjunctive assertion of all the answers. A question does look more like a sentence than a name of a set, after all, and so should be treated as such. So we get the "whatever" interpretation. Most of the cases so far have used this whatever as a condition --as it were, since it always holds -- for something else, but have been defective in connecting the two parts. It would seem that what is wanted is to connect the purported sentence directly with {ganai} or to put into a {va'o le nu}. In the first case, it gives a true antecedent and thus a sentence equivalent to the consequent, which is probably the point. In the second, following the original pattern, it would reduce to a single event, presumably the one that actually obtains (as yet unknown, perhaps) and so again reduces to the consequent, but with some loss of generality. Both of these seem, in fact, to come to no more than {ro da zo'u ganai da jdima ta gi mi te vecnu ta} -- a much clearer or less controversial form. And one that lends itself naturally to such typical questions as "Even if it cost a billion dollars, would you still buy it?" (nevermind how hard it is to figure out how to say this in Lojban). Another possibility, flowing from the latter above is that a free-floating {qkau} clause is just one member of the set it represents, presumably a true one. This would take the selection of the member away from either the superordinate predicate or article and palce it in the {qkau} clause itself. But, in fact, such clauses do not always pick the same member -- {djuno} requires a true one, most others do not, and some may even require a false one. I suppose that one could argue that the insubordinate position serves in the role of superordinate predicate and/or article to pick whatever it picks -- must the pick always be a true one? In sum, the notion of a free-floating {qkau} clause, does not have any obvious validity and, if allowed, does not have an obvious choice as it use. But whatever , choice is made, there is a standard Lojban sentence which accomplishes the same goal. --part1_13d.9578085.299be89c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1.{ko'a cusku lu xu la djan klama li'u}
or more precisely
2. {ko'a te preti fi lu xu la djan klama li'u}

Now, can we say
3. {ko'a te preti fi le du'u xukau la djan klama}
and mean the same as above -- up to the words used?This would be an indirect question in a literal sense.

It is clear that we cannot say -- under even the present usages, let alone the new proposals --
4. {ko'a cusku le du'u xukau la djan klama}
without meaning that ko'a said which way it was with John's coming -- that he did or he didn't or he n'd it (for some n in the range of possible truth values in this case).  That is, this is no longer an indiect question at all, but an indirect answer, just as the corresponding form is in English:"He said whether John came."

If 3 does mean essentially the same as 2, but 1 and 4 are not so related, what does thjis say about the notion of "indirect question" and the way we use them in Lojban.

The obvious suggestion is that there is an underlying thing expressed by {le du'u qkau bridi} that is treated in different ways by different predicates: with {preti} it picks out the question part, with {cusku} an answer, with {djuno} a correct answer, and so on.

One suggestion as to what that common thing might be is found in the usual theory that a question is a set of answers.  {preti} picks on the whole set (or,rather, the set of propositions derived from it), most other predicates -- that make sense with propositions -- pick an unspecified member of the set, sometime requiring that it be true, but otherwise not being precise.

The clearest connection is that 3 can be meaningfully connected (it may even be a definition) with
5. {ko'a cpedu le jetnu du'u xokau la djan klama}

linking asking questions with other kinds of askings, as should be done.

If this line of reasoning is carried on, it appears that the portion after {du'u} in these expressions, the {qkau bridi},  refers to a class of sentences, which {du'u} converts to a class of propositions and which {le} (or whatever -- I have used {le} throughout, but suspect that it is almost always the wrong article -- we'll take that up later) and the superordinate predicate chhose various possible extractions from.  [OK, it's later. One possible story about whether you have questions or answers  would be done by the article: {lo'e},say, for questions, {lo} for answers.  I think this has as much merit and greater possibilities as the vocabulary item separation.  But ti does not affect the argument of the moment.]

What, then, is an "indirect question" that is not subordinated to article, {du'u} and some predicate, a free-floating {qkau}?

One obvious suggestion is that it is a direct question, the one obtained by dropping the {kau}.  After all, {kau} was introduced to avoid the ambiguity that arose if one used a q in a {le du'u} clause, but that is not a problem outside such a context and the {kau} is superfluous.  So, it is just the set of answers presented for your selection.

Another suggestion -- less obvious from abstract considerations but fairly natural for English speakers -- is that it is a disjunctive assertion of all the answers.  A question does look more like a sentence than a name of a set, after all, and so should be treated as such.  So we get the "whatever" interpretation. 
Most of the cases so far have used this whatever as a condition --as it were, since it always holds -- for something else, but have been defective in connecting the two parts.  It would seem that what is wanted is to connect the purported sentence directly with {ganai} or to put into a {va'o le nu}.  In the first case, it gives a true antecedent and thus a sentence equivalent to the consequent, which is probably the point.  In the second, following the original pattern, it would reduce to a single event, presumably the one that actually obtains (as yet unknown, perhaps) and so again reduces to the consequent, but with some loss of generality.  Both of these seem, in fact, to come to no more than {ro da zo'u ganai da jdima ta gi mi te vecnu ta} -- a much clearer or less controversial form.  And one that lends itself naturally to such typical questions as "Even if it cost a billion dollars, would you still buy it?" (nevermind how hard it is to figure out how to say this in Lojban).

Another possibility, flowing from the latter above is that a free-floating {qkau} clause is just one member of the set it represents, presumably a true one.  This would take the selection of the member away from either the superordinate predicate or article and palce it in the {qkau} clause itself.  But, in fact, such clauses do not always pick the same member -- {djuno} requires a true one, most others do not, and some may even require a false one.  I suppose that one could argue that the insubordinate position serves in the role of superordinate predicate and/or article to pick whatever it picks -- must the pick always be a true one?

In sum, the notion of a free-floating {qkau} clause, does not have any obvious validity and, if allowed, does not have an obvious choice as it use.  But whatever , choice is made, there is a standard Lojban sentence which accomplishes the same goal. --part1_13d.9578085.299be89c_boundary--