Lojban In General

Lojban In General

Forum List Topic List

Forums > Lojban In General > djuno lo jei
 
Thread actions
Print this page
  • Print all pages

    • djuno lo jei

    Posted by Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 12:57 GMT

    coi rodo

    Example 7.3 in chapter 11 of the CLL is:

    {mi djuno le jei la frank. cu bebna}
    "I know the truth-value of Frank being a fool."

    It is noted that this means that "I know whether or not Frank is a fool."

    Similarly we have example 7.6:
    {mi kucli le jei la frank. cu bebna}
    "I am curious about how true it is that Frank is a fool."

    These examples seem strange to me. In section 6 of chapter 11, it is
    said that "the 'jei' abstraction refers to a number between 0 and 1
    inclusive (as distinct from 'ni' abstractions, which are often on
    open-ended scales)."

    (aside: Could we similarly say:
    {mi djuno le ni le pixra cu blanu}
    "I know the amount of blueness in the picture"?)

    {lo jei la frank. cu bebna} is a truth-value, a number between 0 and 1
    inclusive. Let's say Frank is really, truly, absolutely a fool.
    Wouldn't it be correct, then, that {lo jei la frank. cu bebna cu du li
    pa}? If so, is it then true that {mi djuno li pa}? Suppose also that
    Jane is really, trully, absolutely brilliant, so that {lo jei la djein
    cu mencre cu du li pa}. Then, is it true that {mi djuno lo jei la jein
    cu mencre}? I might not even know Jane! Whether or not we can actually
    get the {du li pa}s here, the truth-values of these sentences are
    certainly the same, so this last absurdity should be true, right? (A
    similar problem happens for {ni} abstractions used in this way, if
    they can be used in this way at all.)

    I think I would want to translate "I know whether Frank is a fool" as
    {mi djuno lo du'u makau jei la frank cu bebna} (similarly for {ni}).

    In general, given a sumti in a top-level bridi (certainly not
    abstracted, and perhaps there are other ways to get out of the
    "top-level", I dunno), and given that we have an identity statement
    about that sumti, can we substitute salva veritate in the original
    bridi? I feel like we should be able to. For example if {da broda} is
    true, and {da du de} is true, then {de broda} should also be true.

    ki'e mi'e tomoj


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Reads: 11320
    Link
    Posted by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 12:57 GMT

    On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > I think I would want to translate "I know whether Frank is a fool" as
    > {mi djuno lo du'u makau jei la frank cu bebna}

    Yes, that corresponds to the direct question:

    ma jei la frank cu bebna
    What is the truth value of Frank being a fool?

    but normally one would just ask:

    xu la frank bebna
    Is Frank a fool?

    So a more straightforward way for the indirect question is:

    mi djuno lo du'u xu kau la frank cu bebna
    I know whether frank is a fool.

    > In general, given a sumti in a top-level bridi (certainly not
    > abstracted, and perhaps there are other ways to get out of the
    > "top-level", I dunno), and given that we have an identity statement
    > about that sumti, can we substitute salva veritate in the original
    > bridi?

    I would say yes.

    > I feel like we should be able to. For example if {da broda} is
    > true, and {da du de} is true, then {de broda} should also be true.

    How about putting it this way:

    if {ko'a broda} is true, and {ko'a du ko'e} is true, then {ko'e broda}
    should also be true.

    The problem with using "da" and "de" is that they are variables bound
    by quantifiers, and so your way of putting it could mean different
    things depending on what scope you have in mind for the quantifiers.
    Probably you are thinking of "ro da ro de zo'u" with scope over your
    whole English statement, which is a weird mix. If we are just
    considering the Lojban, we have:

    su'o da zo'u da broda
    Something is a broda.

    su'o da su'o de zo'u da du de
    Something is equal to something.

    su'o de zo'u de broda
    Something is a broda.

    If the first one is true, so is the third one, since they say exactly
    the same thing, just using different variables, and the second one is
    trivially true but irrelevant.

    mu'o mi'e xorxes


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link