From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Mon Aug 17 13:36:50 1992 Return-Path: Date: Mon Aug 17 13:36:50 1992 Message-Id: <9208171544.AA28133@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122 Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!oasis.icl.co.uk!I.Alexander.bra0122 Subject: RE: proposals regarding abstractors X-To: cowan X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: RO Sorry. My brain just imploded *-) > > But from the way I've seen {du'u} used, {le du'u broda} > > must be the "(putative) fact", whereas {le se du'u broda} > > is the text, the combination of words. Does this make > > {le du'u broda} the same as {la'e le se du'u broda}? In between writing the above, and getting your reply, I decided I must have got it 180 degrees wrong, and that {le du'u broda} must be the *text*, and {le se du'u broda} the "concept". > I was a bit muddleheaded when I wrote this, but yes, your reading is > correct. However, "se du'u" will work in selbri contexts, whereas > "la'e" is confined to sumti contexts. The intent is to contrast the > abstract proposition with the concrete realization of that proposition. > > > And what does this mean for {ko'a cusku lu broda li'u}? > > It is simply a fact of the language that the x2 place of cusku is a text. > If the place structure sentence needs to be reworded to express this, > so be it. IF the x2 place of {cusku} is a *text* (as you say, and the latest gismu list confirms), as are {lu broda li'u} and (as I said and you confirmed) {le se du'u broda}, whereas {le du'u broda} is a "statement" (I still don't know any good word for this) THEN ko'a cusku lu broda li'u and ko'a cusku le se du'u broda are sensible, but not *ko'a cusku le du'u broda which is what I recall seeing (and using myself), AND ALSO ko'a djuno le du'u broda ko'a jinvi le du'u broda etc., which I also recall seeing (and using), are OK. BUT The latest gismu list says that the x2 of {cusku} is "du'u/text/lu'e concept", i.e. {le du'u broda} is a text. All the other words with a {du'u} place don't have such alternatives, but appear to make more sense with a "concept" rather than a "text". There's definitely something going on here which I don't understand.