Good.
But it would= be nice to formulate a general principle about their use that could apply = across the board. I don't particularly see any reason to confine the = usage to {du'u} (except for the "indirect question" label) or to {ka}: what= he said is presumably a proposition (or a slew of them) but what he saw is= probably an event or a sensation and what a pair have in common might be j= ust about anything: a property, a piece of property, a kinship, a genetic m= utation, and so on forever. Of course, that would suggest the same so= rt of extension for the lambda term (including making it more useful), whic= h ain't gonna happen.

From: Remo Den= tato <rdentato@gmail.com>
T= o: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:16 AM<= br> Subject: Re: [lojban] = {makau} {mokau}

To those still staying = with the original {makau} & {mokau} question.

Thanks! I'm = not quite sure I'll be able to use them properly but I started see what the= y are intended for.

mu'o mi'e la .remod.

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4= :15 PM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

<= br>
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:15:10 PM UTC+4, Latro wrote: {djuno} bothers me, because there's two different useful things it should m= ean. There's a djuno-ka definition, where the speaker knows the du'u that i= s created by applying djuno2 to djuno3, and there's a djuno-du'u definition= , where the speaker knows djuno2, which pertains to djuno3 in some way. The= former is in some sense "incomplete"; {lo se djuno} is not a complete brid= i syntactically but is not a "fact" semantically either. The latter is redu= ndant, and could just as easily be done with srana. (That is, {mi djuno lo = du'u broda noi srana ko'a} =3D=3D {mi djuno lo du'u broda kei ko'a} and {mi= djuno lo srana be ko'a} =3D=3D {mi djuno fi ko'a}).

That said, simply disregarding djuno3 and leaving djuno2 lets you use j= ai hackery to obtain the ka version and srana hackery to obtain the gimste = version. Of course all of this is just tinkering that won't be implemented = anyways.

Could you please provide real exampl= es of djuno with {ka}-meaning and djuno with {srana} meaning.

Another question. What about morji, jimpe? Do they also s= how the same dualism?

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas <<= a href=3D"" rel=3D"nofollow">jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

<= div>On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> {djuno2} is actually a ka, but we pretend that it isn't because the gi= mste
> made its definition clumsy to use that way. Indeed, the djuno2 is a pr= operty
> of the djuno3.

We could say that "djuno" is a sumti raising predicate, in the
linguistic sense of "raising"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_(linguistics) since its x3 is the
semantic argument of an embedded predicate. The same can be said of
almost all predicates that take a ka-argument. (There are a couple of
oddball predicates that the gi'uste says should take ka but are not in
this category.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com<= /a>.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@g= ooglegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/group= s/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_o= ut.