[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)
And:
>What I meant is that indirect questions with djuno & other
>epistemic predicates translate into a certain type of logical
>meaning, characterized by stuff like a universal quantifier
>with wide-scope over the epistemic element, and stuff about
>knowing that x is truth value of y, and so on. None of that
>apparatus is needed for {frica}..
Well, but how can you tell that that is due to the meaning
of Q-kau rather than to the meaning of the epistemic predicate?
The Q-kau of dunli can be expanded with a universal quantifier
of truth values too. Obviously since there's no epistemic
element that part does not apply.
>> This one can be explained exactly like {djuno}:
>>
>> la djan dunli la alis le ka ce'u glico
>> ija la djan dunli la alis le ka ce'u na glico
>> "Either John equals Alice in that they're both English
>> or John equals Alice in that they're both not English."
>
>In what way is this like {djuno}?
In that they follow exactly the same pattern of expansion:
broda le ka/du'u xukau brode
= broda le ka/du'u brode ija broda le ka/du'u na brode
>> How do you translate this one into logical form:
>>
>> mi do toltugni le du'u xukau ta blanu
>> I disagree with you on whether that is blue.
>>
>> Is it an indirect question? It seems to have something in
>> common with {frica}, in that there are two different evaluations
>> of the question.
>
> For every x, a truthvalue of le du`u ta blanu, it is not the case
> that we agree (= each of us believes/claims) that x is tv of
> le du`u ta blanu.
But that's cheating, you're changing the predicate from {toltugni}
to {na tugni}. If that's allowed, then I can do {frica} as {na dunli}
and use the above expansion. The idea was to use an epistemic
predicate that requires different evaluations of the same indirect
question, because that's what I see as the difficulty in expanding
the Q-kau of frica.
co'o mi'e xorxes