On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at = 2:30 AM, tengo <yurock.tengo@gmail.com> wrote:

Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis wrote:
> =A0 {mi djuno lo du'u ma kau jei la .frank. bebna}
> =A0 "I know what the truth-value or Frank being a fool is."<= br>

I agree with this one, assuming that "or" is a typo (should= be "of").

Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > 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?
>

> No, it's "You know that is Frank fool= ish?". This doesn't sound like good
> English, but that's what it means. It could be interpreted as &quo= t;You know
> whether Frank is foolish. Is he?".

So, {do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna} contains a positive=
claim ("you know whether Frank is foolish"). Which means that the=
scope of {xu} is limited. Is this defined? From what I have read so
far, placement of {xu} indicates focus of question, but its scope is
always the main bridi (a jufra with {xu} does not contain a positive
claim). Consider the following:

.i do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna
.i ja'a go'i
.i na go'i

With long-scope {xu} it means:

Is it true that you know that Frank is foolish?

Indeed, I know that Frank is foolish.
No. It is false that I know that Frank is foolish.

With short-scope {xu}:

You know whether Frank is foolish. Is he?

I indeed know whether Frank is foolish.
I don't know whether Frank is foolish.

Here are some more examples of different interpretations of {xu}.

.i lo nu xu la .djan. catke le ckukajna cu pu rinka lo nu ri farlu
.i ja'a go'i
.i na go'i

Long-scope {xu}:
Is it true that John's pushing of the bookshelf caused it to fall?
Yes, John's pushing of the bookshelf indeed caused it to fall.
No. It is false that John's pushing of the bookshelf caused it to
fall.

Short-scope {xu}:
Something caused the bookshelf to fall. Was it John's pushing?
Something indeed caused the bookshelf to fall. It may or may not be
John's pushing.
It is false that something (which may or may not be John's pushing)
caused the bookshelf to fall.

.i la .djan. pu klama zo'e noi ke'a zarci xu lo cidja
.i ja'a go'i
.i na go'i

Long-scope {xu}:
Is it true that John went to the grocery *store*?
Yes, John indeed went to the grocery store.
No. It is false that John went to the grocery store.

Short-scope {xu}:
John went somewhere. Is it the grocery *store*, where he went?
John indeed went somewhere, which may or may not be the grocery store.
It is false that John went there, whether that is the grocery store or
not.

What interpretation is correct, and why?

= =A0 =A0 I think the issue really isn't with the "xu", but the= fact that NA is scoped over the whole bridi (despite xorxes' objection= (the rationality of which I am not debating here, as it applies to bridi-t= ails, and so forth) that it should be interpreted as naku in place (rather = than in the prenex)). =A0So "na go'i" -> "naku =A0la = .djan. pu klama zo'e noi ke'a zarci lo cidja" And therefore, w= e cannot decide where the falsehood lies, simply that such incident as desc= ribed did not take place. =A0It would seem a more meaningful response would= be for the answerer to treat the questioner as if he asked what he really = intended, "la .djan. pu klama zo'e noi ke'a mo lo cidja" = and not try to shortcut with "go'i": "na go'i .i la = =A0djan klama lo cange lo cidja" =A0or "na'i go'i .i la d= jan pu ca'o catlu le vidni"

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --gejyspa

--
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.
--00151759286efda96704c284dd62--