Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> In contrast, a token of a declarative verb is grammatically specified
> merely as an assertion: the truth value of "I command you to go" is
> not necessarily contingent on whether the utterance itself is a
> command by the speaker, to the addressee.

It would be interesting to find a context where {mi do minde
le nu do klama} is false. In practical terms, it would seem that
uttering the claim makes it true. (I agree that not necessarily
in theory.)

> Okay. I accept that the case for xohu is reduced to a matter of
> convenience. Roughly speaking, it can be used to override default
> scope in rule-governed ways, which is useful either for brevity
> or as an afterthought (in preference to deleting what one has already
> said and starting over again); all methods of avoiding xohu involve
> forethought (e.g. & mainly, sticking the variable it would attach to
> into the prenex of a higher bridi than the bridi the variable is a
> sumti in).

Yes, but xo'u is not a general afterthought solution. It can only work
in very limited cases. Say it sends you to widest scope, as you suggest.
Why is that more important than the next outer prenex, for example?
Or more important than going to the outermost prenex, but keeping the
scope of the other quantifications that already appeared in that prenex?
{xo'u} gives a little more flexibility, but not general flexibility,
for most other scope orders you'd still have to resort to prenexing.

If {xo'u} appeared in some often used type of construction, then I
would accept that it is convenient, but all the examples seem
to be for unlikely meanings, where some forethought might not be
too much extra burden.

If {xo'u} allowed you to do away with prenexes altogether, then I'd
like it. But it doesn't. It only works for a restricted set of
meanings with no special properties as far as I can tell.

> > > I wasn't claiming that {xohu da} suffices for {makau} as indirect
> > > interrogatives in a duhu-clause. I have previously offered "She knows
> > > the identity of the set of colours of the house" as a way of
> > > rendering "She knows what colour the house is".
> > Yes, and I disagreed with you, because an identity is not a fact, and
> > one knows (djuno) facts.
> I'm not persuaded I agree with you, but anyway, here's a remedy:
>
>   Ex, she knows that x is the identity of the set of the colours of the
>     house.

Ok, suppose that is equivalent. Now, don't you think that something
that saves you from talking about "identities" and "sets", like {kau}
does, is an excellent device?

Compare:

 da zo'u ko'a djuno le du'u da ka du lo'i se skari be le zdani

(assuming {ka du} works for "identity")
 vs:

        ko'a djuno le du'u le zdani cu skari makau


> > > >        ko'a se pluka le nu le zdani cu skari makau
> > > > is more general, because it includes the possibility for example that
> > > > {le zdani cu skari noda}
> > > "She likes the identity of the set of colours of the house" would
> > > allow for these possibilities.
> > "She likes what the identity of the set of... is", not the identity in
> > itself. What's likable about an identity?
> But anyway, the identity of the set is the sum of those properties
> that differentiate the set from all others. Why can one not like
> this sum of properties?

Well, I suppose you can. But then "she likes that the house is blue"
seems quite different from "she likes all the properties that differentiate
the set {blue} from all other sets".

Does the set {blue} have the property that the house has as colour
one of its members?

> > How would you say {ko'a cusku le sedu'u xokau prenu ba klama} = "She
> > said how many people are coming."
>
>   Ex, she said that x is the cardinality of the set of people that are
>    coming.

All right, and what would that be in Lojban? Would it be a phrase for
everyday use? I wouldn't know how to say "the cardinality of a set",
but "the how many of something" is quite easy with xokau.



> Okay: that's an objection to my avoidance of keha. But do we need
> makau? Say koha is red and kohe is blue. Then
>
>   ro da, da is member of {koha, kohe}, ro de, da skari de:
>      koha kohe frica le ka keha skari de
>
> says that being red and being blue are differences between koha and
> kohe. I don't see what your objections to this are going to be, but
> I'm sure there will be some.

Certainly. The first objection is the utter length of it:

    ro da poi cmima lu'i ko'a ce ko'e ro de poi da skari ke'a zo'u
    ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari de

I have no doubt that I prefer to say:

        ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari makau

Second objection: I think {de} there is forced to be all colours of both
ko'a and ko'e, but I'm not 100% sure about that. That can be cured (if
need be) changing to:

        ro da poi ko'a a ko'e skari ke'a zo'u
        ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari da

which even makes it a bit shorter. (Probably {onai} would be even better
than {a}, so that you exclude colours that they have in common.)

But that is still saying two (or more) sentences.
You are saying:

        ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari *blue*
        ije ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari *red*

With {makau} you are saying something like:

The questions {ko'a skari ma} and {ko'e skari ma} have different answers.

Jorge











> Look at this as practice for explaining
> to the community at large.
>
> > But ke'a is not equal to either ko'a or ko'e. ke'a is a place keeper,
> > for a place that remains empty in this sentence.
>
> Can we say {lo ka keha mamta keha} to mean "the mother relation",
> "the function from mothers to offspring"? If we can, I start to
> see a strong case for it.
>
> ----
> And
>