From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 08 15:55:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 8 Aug 2001 22:55:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6516 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2001 22:55:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Aug 2001 22:55:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.248) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Aug 2001 22:55:46 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:55:46 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.46 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:55:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.46] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Whatever Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:55:46 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2001 22:55:46.0518 (UTC) FILETIME=[42A40F60:01C1205D] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e > > mi ba te vecnu ta ije do jinvi makau la'e di'u > > I will buy it, whatever you may think about it. > >Some formulation roughly along the lines of > > "ro da zo'u mi ba te vecnu ta iju do jinvi da la'e di'u" > >seems adequate, because if "do jinvi no da la'e di'u" >then "ro da .... do na jinvi da la'e di'u", and the U-connective >then makes "mi ba te vecnu ta" true per each value of da. > >Or am I missing something? It has the same truth values, yes. > > I don't know it's that important that it be in the future: > > > > mi pu te vecnu ta ije ta pu rupnu makau > > I bought it, whatever it cost. > >The English is ambiguous. Does it mean (A) "I resolved to buy it >regardless of cost, and then bought it" = "I, being regardless >to its cost, bought it", or does it mean (B) "Whatever it cost, it >is the case that I bought it"? > >I guess you must intend your Lojban to mean the latter, so let >me have a stab at it. Yes, that's what I meant. >Well -- what's wrong with > > "ro da zo'u mi ba te vecnu ta iju ta pu rupnu da" > >? That seems to closely capture reading (B). Yes, I suppose the truth values match. > > >It makes it clearer that indirect questions > > >always seem to involve universal quantifiers having scope over > > >some sort of operator [WHAT SORT? ANY SORT?] that has scope > > >over the variable bound by the quantifier. > > > > I don't think I really want "I bought it" within the scope of > > anything, its truth is independent of the rest. > >It's independent truth doesn't entail it is not within something's >scope. But what does it mean that it is within its scope? Doesn't "For all x, F ju G(x)" reduce logically to F? And if it does, is there any meaning in the initial formula that is not present in the reduced one? > > The kau-phrase > > is a tautology, as it stands for the answer to {ta pu rupnu ma}. > >So you want something like: > > mi ba te vecnu ta ije ro da zo'u ga ta rupnu da gi ta na rupnu da > >But though this seems to me to meet your ostensible requirements, on >a gut level it seems less satisfactory than my earlier version. Yes, I agree. But in truth value terms they are equivalent. How about if we add a {ki'unai}: mi te vecnu ta ijeki'unaibo ta rupnu makau I buy it, despite what it costs. (I buy it despite that it costs what it costs.) This doesn't work so well with {roda...ijuki'unaibo} because the "despite" applies only to one answer... I think. > > We should probably just > > concentrate on makau, because if xukau and xokau must involve > > truth values and cardinalities of sets, that's just an unnecessary > > complication. > >OK. But you could cause me more conniptions by bringing up peikau, >fi'akau, ge'ikau. It will come, all in due time... mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp