From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 09 18:13:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 01:13:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 45739 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 01:13:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 01:13:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 01:13:03 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.74]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010810011301.QVYK710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:13:01 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Whatever Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:12:07 +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" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e [...] > > > >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? No it doesn't. It's clearer if you change it to "For some x" and compare that to a version with a "Ex G(x)" version. > 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. Note that this is "what it costs", not "whatever it costs". This example strikes me as a definitely pukka indirect question [I would ordinarily say "kosher", but am not sure this wouldn't offend anyone]. I therefore won't kill myself trying to logic it, since I've already accepted my inability so far to logic all types of pukka indirect Q. > > > 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... Slowly though, please. We've too much on our plates already as things are. --And.