Received: from mail-ob0-f189.google.com ([209.85.214.189]:58916) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SbbGf-0003eP-0d; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:41 -0700 Received: by obbtb18 with SMTP id tb18sf5676384obb.16 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Me4eZY52n3jRdDyX4e8NBK/6P3GqmdC9fw/9wufW4TY=; b=gZWZIWq/aHs4A68wYwxOv5wvFzy2vembWoY9xGgUIuiWlMRaCmd+1CJxgHrt2RHV3M qK1vYanzKqfnEpfxX8TIbqaW/ux17mQt7iQgjV5nroF84uIY6gnv4qIQGePcFpbAhvIa vDWlfRFKRTgM/opDKHH3cmyRM04H9TXMMzGtU= Received: by 10.182.95.172 with SMTP id dl12mr121868obb.5.1338831630481; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.229.8 with SMTP id sm8ls14830845pbc.0.gmail; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.241.71 with SMTP id wg7mr575035pbc.8.1338831629962; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.241.71 with SMTP id wg7mr575034pbc.8.1338831629952; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f51.google.com (mail-pb0-f51.google.com [209.85.160.51]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gi6si1618722pbc.0.2012.06.04.10.40.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.51; Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id rp16so7260879pbb.24 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.222.165 with SMTP id qn5mr16851407pbc.14.1338831629798; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.222.201 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:40:29 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] xu kau From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@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: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com 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: / On 4 June 2012 10:21, tengo wrote: > 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 This example doesn't make sense. Assume that {la .frank. bebna} has the same truth value as {la .djordj. klama le zarci} (for example, both are positively true), then {le jei la .frank. bebna} and {le jei la .djordj. klama le zarci} refer to the same thing, and Example 7.3 is equivalent to {mi djuno le jei la .djordj. klama le zarci}, while its presumed translation is certainly not equivalent to "I know whether or not George goes to the market". A more sensible bridi would be {mi djuno lo du'u ma kau jei la .frank. bebna} "I know what the truth-value or Frank being a fool is." It is as different from {mi djuno lo du'u xu kau la .frank. bebna} as these questions are different: {ma jei la .frank. bebna} {xu la .frank. bebna} This is a common problem arising from naively translating terms of an Engli= sh sentence at the wrong time. For example, "I know the result of '2+2'" is certainly not equivalent to "I know 4". > > 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}? > I think of du'u-kau constructions as formal questions, as plain du'u are fo= rmal predications. When they are the x2 of {djuno}, it should be read as "x1 kno= ws the answer to question x2 ...". The jei-version presented in CLL has always been nonsense. mu'o mi'e .asiz. --=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.