From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Sep 22 03:00:00 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 22 Sep 1992 02:59:57 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2546; Tue, 22 Sep 92 02:58:45 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 8690; Tue, 22 Sep 92 02:58:43 EDT Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 16:58:16 EST Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: TECH: Higley on "kau" X-To: "(Lojban Mailing List)" To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: ; from "@pucc.Princeton.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET" at Sep 20, 92 11:18 pm Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: Quoth Greg Highley: > As I understand it, the cmavo "kau" indicates that the value of >that which it "modifies" is known, presumably to the speaker, but >there are instances where this is apparently not the case. [] >How do we >know to whom the referent is known? Is kau somehow connected to the >x1 sumti of djuno and any other related gismu? For if I say la djos >djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi, apparently it is to >John (and not to me?) that the referent of pakau le prenu is known. >If kau does not always indicate that it is the speaker who knows the >referent, what is the standard for determining this? For la djos >djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi could mean "John >knows that one of the people walked on the floor, and I know which >one." But this seems contrary to intuition. What is the standard? >Is there one? An outstanding question. I have held that the knower of {kau} is the knower of the bridi it is in, implicit or not. "John knows which one." I also wished that extended to observative atitudinals such as {za'a}, which gave rise to reaction from Fairfax. This issue is unresolved, but I agree with you on the above solution being counterintuitive. {se'i}/{se'inai} exist as (kludgy) patchwork disambiguators at the moment. But no consensus on default interpretation was reached. >I think it would be useful and advantageous to split the use of kau as >it is used with indefinites and interrogatives. With interrogatives, >kau could be used to ask a question, while indicating that the speaker >already knows the answer. Thus a teacher could ask her students, mi >makau zukte makau "What am I doing and to what end?" and her students >would realize that she wasn't just asking this for her (mental) >health. With indefinites on the other hand (and I class such things >as pa le prenu among them), kau would perform its simple duty of >letting us know that the referent is known. mi zo'ekau zukte zo'ekau >means something like "I'm doing something-known-to-me for some >purpose-known-to-me." And thus mi djuno le du'u do du zo'ekau "I know >that you are someone-known-to-me."/"I know who you are." becomes easy. I hope this distinction, which is pretty elegant and clear, wasn't passed over in the spec of {kau} (although I remember at the time that I felt I understood {kau} better than Lojban Central :) . But yes, that's correct. Btw, as John Cowan will no doubt point out, {kau} is not restricted to knowing/djuno, but can extend to all sorts of analogous concepts like believing, opining etc. >1By the way, what is the indefinite cmavo corresponding to mo, which I >believe was mentioned in that very same article on kau. I know it's a >CV'V beginning with c. co'e ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick S. Nicholas, "Rode like foam on the river of pity Depts. of CompSci & ElecEng, Turned its tide to strength University of Melbourne, Australia. Healed the hole that ripped in living" nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au - Suzanne Vega, Book Of Dreams ______________________________________________________________________________