RE: "what i have for dinner"
And Rosta
>
> And Rosta wrote:
>
> > I don't remember any discussion on Linguist about that. If you
> > could exercise a bit of your detective genius & locate it for me
> > somewhere I'd be very very grateful.
>
> No actual discussion, just Q (mine) and summary (mine). See
> http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-504.html#4 and
> http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-525.html#1 respectively.
I remembered them when I read them. Hard to imagine it was 1992.
Anyway, your question is more "how do languages express what in
English are indirect interrogatives", whereas what I'm after is
"what do indirect interrogatives mean, logically". I note pc's
pointers to some literature. Mind you, I'll be mightily pissed
off if they simply posit a WH quantifier, which is the usual
strategy, & strikes me as a copout.
> > On the other hand, it could be argued that if I wonder who came then
> > it does follow that "I want that (Ax) (I know whether x came)".
>
> I think this is an excessively robust kind of wondering. If I wonder
> who wrote the book of love (from a doo-wop song, full lyric
> available at http://www.fiftiesweb.com/lyrics/booklove.htm), it does
> not follow that I actually want to know this: my curiosity may be
> quite idle.
OK, but wondering decomposes into some kind of trying/wanting with
respect to some kind of epistemic state. Whether or not we can find
appropriate expressions for those in English, _X wonder P_ nonetheless
means "X dweeble that X beeble that P", where "dweeble" is some kind
of trying/wanting and "beeble" is some kind of epistemic state.
I couldn't be arsed to look up the doo-wop song URL, so sang myself
"Sea of Love" instead.
--And.
John Cowan
> This is getting into greater subtleties than I'd originally
> intended. I wonder whether it is "know" that is complicating
> things here, rather than interrogativity per se.
It almost certainly is. To paraphrase Ursula LeGuin, I can take
a little indirect-question, or a little epistemology, but the
combination is poison.
> Indeed. Oddly, I'm not aware of a profusion of studies of their
> semantics in the linguistics literature.
That's because many people don't think there's a problem, and the
few who do know that it is intractable. (I found this out via
Linguist List some years ago.)
> I think my former rendition of "know who came" as "for every x, know
> whether x came" (with a further step to translate "whether" into
> logical form) was simpler than what we are proposing here, but I
> never got it to generalize to nonepistemic examples like the
> insurance premium ones above.
Let us consider "wonder", which is nonepistemic. If I wonder who came
to the party, it does not follow that (Ax) (I wonder whether X came).
For example, I do not wonder whether Julius Caesar came, or the planet Mars,
or the number 4.
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <jco...@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
And Rosta
>
> At 02:50 PM 12/11/99 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> >OK, but wondering decomposes into some kind of trying/wanting with
> >respect to some kind of epistemic state. Whether or not we can find
> >appropriate expressions for those in English, _X wonder P_ nonetheless
> >means "X dweeble that X beeble that P", where "dweeble" is some kind
> >of trying/wanting and "beeble" is some kind of epistemic state.
>
> le'i klama" which I gues puts me in the set membership camp for at
> least this aspect of indirect questions.
Not really, becaue you've left the {kau} in, and we'd all agree
that {da klama} = {da cmima le'i klame}.
What we're looking for is a way to say it without {kau}, ideally a
method that generalizes to cover all Q-{kau} uses. For example,
"John knows who came" = "Ax x came iff John knows x came" (a
nongeneralizing method, alas).
> Note that le'i implies that set that I am curious
> about quite intensional; I have no curiosity about the ants, flies, or
> bacteria who might have come.
>
> lojbab (probably sticking his nose in where he cannot possibly
> understand).
The problem is more merely-difficult than arcane.
BTW, I still haven't properly digested all earlier responses on this
thread; I'm not just ignoring them.
--And.
Py...@aol.com
> it does follow that "I want that (Ax) (I know whether x came)".
I think this is an excessively robust kind of wondering. If I wonder
who wrote the book of love (from a doo-wop song, full lyric
available at http://www.fiftiesweb.com/lyrics/booklove.htm), it does
not follow that I actually want to know this: my curiosity may be
quite idle. >>
dismissal of any question in a way that one can 'just investigate',' say,
only in contrast with very serious action, like seeking indictments. But
more importantly, "I wonder who..." can't be "for all x, I wonder whether
x..." since there are a lot of x's that I do not know or believe about, and
many that I actively believe do not exist. I no more wonder about them than
I do about the many others that I am convinced do not ... . Note that the
"whether" also requires both the negative and the positive answers, whereas
the original seeks only the positive, though negative ones help, of course.
Putting the quantifier inside the "want" (or, for "wonder," "sorta like")
may help some, since those already move into opaque realms, though different
ones from the realm of "know" (I can want something I know does not exist --
and often do).
pc
And Rosta
>
> And Rosta wrote:
>
> > This is getting into greater subtleties than I'd originally
> > intended. I wonder whether it is "know" that is complicating
> > things here, rather than interrogativity per se.
>
> It almost certainly is. To paraphrase Ursula LeGuin, I can take
> a little indirect-question, or a little epistemology, but the
> combination is poison.
>
> > Indeed. Oddly, I'm not aware of a profusion of studies of their
> > semantics in the linguistics literature.
>
> That's because many people don't think there's a problem, and the
> few who do know that it is intractable. (I found this out via
> Linguist List some years ago.)
I don't remember any discussion on Linguist about that. If you
could exercise a bit of your detective genius & locate it for me
somewhere I'd be very very grateful.
> > I think my former rendition of "know who came" as "for every x, know
> > whether x came" (with a further step to translate "whether" into
> > logical form) was simpler than what we are proposing here, but I
> > never got it to generalize to nonepistemic examples like the
> > insurance premium ones above.
>
> Let us consider "wonder", which is nonepistemic. If I wonder who came
> to the party, it does not follow that (Ax) (I wonder whether X came).
> For example, I do not wonder whether Julius Caesar came, or the
> planet Mars, or the number 4.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if I wonder who came then
it does follow that "I want that (Ax) (I know whether x came)".
Perhaps "We decided who was to be invited" is more definitely not
epistemic.
I haven't found the peace of mind to contemplate the problem yet, &
will reply to others' suggestions when I have.
--And.
Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)
> > > it does follow that "I want that (Ax) (I know whether x came)".
> >
> > who wrote the book of love (from a doo-wop song, full lyric
> > available at http://www.fiftiesweb.com/lyrics/booklove.htm), it does
> > not follow that I actually want to know this: my curiosity may be
> > quite idle.
>
>respect to some kind of epistemic state. Whether or not we can find
>appropriate expressions for those in English, _X wonder P_ nonetheless
>means "X dweeble that X beeble that P", where "dweeble" is some kind
>of trying/wanting and "beeble" is some kind of epistemic state.
I understand "I wonder who came" as "mi kucli le nu makau cmima le'i klama"
which I gues puts me in the set membership camp for at least this aspect of
indirect questions. Note that le'i implies that set that I am curious
about quite intensional; I have no curiosity about the ants, flies, or
bacteria who might have come.
lojbab (probably sticking his nose in where he cannot possibly understand).
----
lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.
John Cowan
> I don't remember any discussion on Linguist about that. If you
> could exercise a bit of your detective genius & locate it for me
> somewhere I'd be very very grateful.
No actual discussion, just Q (mine) and summary (mine). See
http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-504.html#4 and
http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-525.html#1 respectively.
> On the other hand, it could be argued that if I wonder who came then
> it does follow that "I want that (Ax) (I know whether x came)".
I think this is an excessively robust kind of wondering. If I wonder
who wrote the book of love (from a doo-wop song, full lyric
available at http://www.fiftiesweb.com/lyrics/booklove.htm), it does
not follow that I actually want to know this: my curiosity may be
quite idle.
--