Received: from mail-gg0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:34248) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SbZJi-0002oN-Vc; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:45 -0700 Received: by ggke5 with SMTP id e5sf4235356ggk.16 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nanVGA3cG9LaiIEYqQycB6M+XYVDDc2mQmuQog6nfWc=; b=nIjIcH8CSgeG/+9LgLHmqL2z9yISb/znnLmrO28gAlA0eWUdZWCH6veqjTrg0o9/nY kRQvp5wENrWI/9+CIydfYssyJzEskmj9Tshc+5mATKY/0SsRGSumY7HNMamMOFHWgvKy a/kaEjj9maajC6Y1Ki/nJerD79MYn1395V22o= Received: by 10.236.116.5 with SMTP id f5mr333034yhh.2.1338824132400; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.236.93.48 with SMTP id k36ls5385587yhf.6.gmail; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.180.23 with SMTP id h23mr5749871anp.14.1338824131037; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.180.23 with SMTP id h23mr5749870anp.14.1338824131022; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a57si7793266yhh.5.2012.06.04.08.35.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.54; Received: by yhgm50 with SMTP id m50so4540028yhg.27 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.28.7 with SMTP id x7mr12347436oeg.30.1338824130762; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:35:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.17.97 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:35:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: ".arpis." Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:35:10 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] xu kau To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Wouldn't it be better to use {pau nai} in that case? On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > I always thought of xukau as intended to mean you're asking a rhetorical > question. > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:21 AM, tengo wrote: >> >> coi >> >> I have read about {xu} and {kau}, and I find most usage of {xu kau} >> odd. As I understand {xu}, it puts the main bridi into question, not a >> sub-bridi. Consider the following example: >> >> do djuno lo du'u la .frank. cu bebna >> You know that Frank is foolish >> >> First I add {xu}: >> >> do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna >> Is it true that you know that Frank is foolish? >> Do you know that Frank is foolish? >> >> So, it's now a question. Then I add {kau}: >> >> do djuno lo du'u xu kau la .frank. cu bebna >> Whether you know that Frank is foolish. >> >> Which is what seems odd to me. The CLL has an example in chapter 11: >> >> 7.3) =A0 mi djuno le jei la frank. cu bebna [kei] >> =A0 =A0 =A0 I know the truth-value of Frank being a fool. >> >> And later in the text: "I know whether or not Frank is a fool", which >> seems to be the intended meaning of {mi djuno lo du'u xu kau >> la .frank. cu bebna}. >> >> So, is there a special rule for interpretation of {xu kau}? If yes, >> where is it defined? Is the {jei}-version still correct with current >> definitions of {jei} and {djuno}? >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s >> "Lojban Beginners" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den. >> > > > > -- > mu'o mi'e .aionys. > > .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o > (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den. --=20 mu'o mi'e .arpis. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.