Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qERYS-00001EC; Fri, 17 Jun 94 03:13 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4523; Fri, 17 Jun 94 03:13:23 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4518; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 03:13:22 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1867; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 02:11:29 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 20:15:04 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: {kau} and {du'u} and {jei} To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 51 la djan cusku di'e > I find the mixture of "te" conversion and "fo...fe" tags confusing, though > not incorrect. I agree, but Nick's sentence has some interesting things. Let's simplify it a bit: la xrist te preti fe le nu ko'a djica le nu la xrist dunda dakau ko'a Christ asked what ko'a wanted Christ to give to ko'a. > Since x2 of preti is a "subject", perhaps this falls under > the use of "le ka ... dakau" that you discuss later. Alternatively, use > the x1 place with "le se du'u" which is the equivalent of a quotation. No, this is not the same case as the "le ka ... dakau", and in fact, I think this shows that there is a conflict between the two. If interpreted as in that case, the dakau would be standing for ko'a, meaning something like "Christ asked about ko'a's liking to be a gift from Christ to ko'a." A simpler example: mi djuno le du'u by zmadu cy le ka prami dakau can mean either: I know B exceeds C in being loved. or: I know in loving whom B exceeds C. The first one, if we take {kau} as the disambiguator for {le ka ...} and the second one, if we take it as the indirect question marker. This type of confusion would be rare, but can Lojban accept that ambiguity? > > Then again, I can't really think of any use for > > {le jei ...}, is it really a short form for {le du'u xukau ...}? > > It comes up in the arguments for "kanxe" and "vlina" and such. Not really. Those are (du'u) places: kanxe x1 is a conjunction, stating that x2 (du'u) and x3 (du'u) are both true (This makes me ask, what type of place is x1? Is it text=(sedu'u)?) Jorge