From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Mar 16 13:59:49 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nrdrh-0002Yg-4k for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:59:49 -0700 Received: from mail-gy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.160.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NrdrW-0002XT-Kk for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:59:45 -0700 Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so118263gyh.40 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:59:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=UX2MT5762VbMbxcCgEAUS4Xmr0g01N47nsHCzs9vCT8=; b=XDwAwMXPOjUqItSknqFeVkWUUYmiYaULurY5qmGzvqwW3W3OfBI/1bn2Rdu7IYcI0O r3mh9Faz+FnI8NTM0bnGHTZnTTC8pMv2k12OLeJA+rILK2Tnzxxfgx9bFYtUcx8g6gLt OaThygfgoOAI3ga8rTNEn98vRrYbAWOpks9ag= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Z24Sdez7lDwUNVAz1SE0aHFPJvZvN7KbW4wTEsttNuKX8ilRJq8j7n3XhoqGSaUtXN 9Nb8aWWsxQa80HFLTeP643i8KfbKmKhk8/WEsAX96qCQonYdAlaf/8wvME4TkTyNq6mT 1dKdPkVIVdm2vwT98NQ5KWm/c+7mbSvXEpYhk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.82.11 with SMTP id f11mr9330anb.377.1268773171634; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:59:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5715b9301003152036u68112bb1o194e1ea3ceedb1c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <4de8c3931003130452v3473ee1ei70da65f022ac2b1b@mail.gmail.com> <16d9defd1003151137mba5fc38lba8b846c6faac933@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a61003151223y40cbd6a8s8c0a5041d89ffcb0@mail.gmail.com> <1f1080831003151435u2d8df14eo26bb0a4f60a33c2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003151529l45aae38aiac525e7e832e0db3@mail.gmail.com> <1f1080831003151545n6b3a1bd4x34eebbdaaebaa786@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003151718y716cdc5cn4464653606e722f0@mail.gmail.com> <1f1080831003151845u6a7a5d87x97ed40dd5d2dbf5f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003152025w7747ab1aj7e127feee1d94cd5@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003152036u68112bb1o194e1ea3ceedb1c2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:59:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1f1080831003161359i17e83f3fsf7824a2400e2f054@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"? From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0050450170413223280481f1465d X-archive-position: 3022 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: blindbravado@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0050450170413223280481f1465d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That is interesting not so much for actual usage as for improvement of styl= e in real English; I know people definitely tend to overuse "to be", passive constructions, etc. I've been thinking a little more about this to try to explain what I was getting at here, and I think I pretty much got what my idea was. It's essentially some sort of sense of knowing that transcends knowing something about something; rather, you intimately "know" something (in Spanish here I would probably use conocer instead of saber, but even that doesn't quite ge= t at what I mean). If you had a proposition for example, in this sort of knowing you would not only know its truth value as is but would also know what the implied entries should be. If we were to define djuno this way, this sentence would have a completely different meaning: mi djuno lo du'u klama because you would not only know there was going going on but would know who was doing it, where they were going, where they were coming from, what rout= e they were taking, and what vehicle they were using. It's an extreme example= , but hopefully you get the idea. Similarly you might have a construction in which you know everything about the relationship between two objects: you don't just know an answer to {lo broda mo lo brode}, you know all such possible answers. I'm sort of exaggerating it to try to get at how fundamental the concept was, trying to emphasize how far it is from knowing (a) particular fact(s) about something. Does this make sense at all? mu'omi'e .latros. On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Luke Bergen wrote= : > This whole topic reminds me of e-prime. I haven't thought about that > project in a while. Maybe you will find it interesting, Ian, in your > quest for a language with no indirect questions :) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime > > 2010/3/15 Jorge Llamb=EDas > >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Ian Johnson >> wrote: >> >> > I suppose that makes sense. I also suppose that what I should've said >> would >> > be "I know what the truth value of {bridi} is", which is in and of >> itself an >> > indirect question...gah. >> >> Right, in that case you could use the "truth value" meaning of "jei", as >> in: >> >> mi djuno lo du'u makau jei >> >> but it's just more verbiage added to the simpler "xukau" form. And to >> be consistent, the direct question to use should be: >> >> ma jei >> >> instead of the simpler: >> >> xu >> >> > Would really be nice IMO to come up with some sort >> > of mechanism to ascend beyond indirect questions altogether, but I don= 't >> > think I'm anywhere near metalinguistic enough to come up with one. I >> wonder >> > if there are any natural languages that do something completely >> different >> > from them... >> >> Well, in English you can avoid them most of the time. You can say "I >> know your name" instead of "I know what your name is", or "I know the >> number of apples in the basket" instead of "I know how many apples >> there are in the basket", and I guess "I know if you are tired" is the >> way to avoid the "whether" indirect question.. But that doeasn't >> really work in Lojban because the object of "djuno" has to be a >> proposition. >> >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> >> >> >> > --0050450170413223280481f1465d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That is interesting not so much for actual usage as for improvement of styl= e in real English; I know people definitely tend to overuse "to be&quo= t;, passive constructions, etc.

I've been thinking a little more= about this to try to explain what I was getting at here, and I think I pre= tty much got what my idea was. It's essentially some sort of sense of k= nowing that transcends knowing something about something; rather, you intim= ately "know" something (in Spanish here I would probably use cono= cer instead of saber, but even that doesn't quite get at what I mean). = If you had a proposition for example, in this sort of knowing you would not= only know its truth value as is but would also know what the implied entri= es should be. If we were to define djuno this way, this sentence would have= a completely different meaning:
mi djuno lo du'u klama
because you would not only know there was goi= ng going on but would know who was doing it, where they were going, where t= hey were coming from, what route they were taking, and what vehicle they we= re using. It's an extreme example, but hopefully you get the idea. Simi= larly you might have a construction in which you know everything about the = relationship between two objects: you don't just know an answer to {lo = broda mo lo brode}, you know all such possible answers. I'm sort of exa= ggerating it to try to get at how fundamental the concept was, trying to em= phasize how far it is from knowing (a) particular fact(s) about something.<= br>
Does this make sense at all?

mu'omi'e .latros.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmai= l.com> wrote:
This whole topic = reminds me of e-prime. =A0I haven't thought about that project in a whi= le. =A0Maybe you will find it interesting,=A0Ian, in your q= uest for a language with no indirect questions :)

ht= tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

2010/3/= 15 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrot= e:

> I suppose that makes sense. I also suppose that what I should've s= aid would
> be "I know what the truth value of {bridi} is", which is in = and of itself an
> indirect question...gah.

Right, in that case you= could use the "truth value" meaning of "jei", as in:
=A0 mi djuno lo du'u makau jei <bridi>

but it's just more verbiage added to the simpler "xukau" form= . And to
be consistent, the direct question to use should be:

=A0 ma jei <bridi>

instead of the simpler:

=A0 xu <bridi>

> Would really be nice IMO to come up with some sort
> of mechanism to ascend beyond indirect questions altogether, but I don= 't
> think I'm anywhere near metalinguistic enough to come up with one.= I wonder
> if there are any natural languages that do something completely differ= ent
> from them...

Well, in English you can avoid them most of the time. You can say &qu= ot;I
know your name" instead of "I know what your name is", or &q= uot;I know the
number of apples in the basket" instead of "I know how many apple= s
there are in the basket", and I guess "I know if you are tired&qu= ot; is the
way to avoid the "whether" indirect question.. But that doeasn= 9;t
really work in Lojban because the object of "djuno" has to be a proposition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





--0050450170413223280481f1465d--