From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Sat Jun 18 15:45:36 1994
Message-Id: <199406181940.AA25289@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Sat Jun 18 15:45:36 1994
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: (kau) and (du'u) and (jei)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la i,n cusku di'e

> You asked for it. :-)
>
>   Subject:  TECH:  Desperately seeking properties

[...]

> So we could simply use a parallel construction with {ka}.
>
>     lo'e kanba cu zmadu mi leka tu'okau da tuple de
>     Goats have more legs than me.

I liked it at first, but I think even this use conflicts with indirect
questions.

     mi djuno le du'u lo'e kanba mi zmadu le ka xokau da tuple de

Could mean:

  1- I know that goats have more legs than me.

  2- I know the number of legs which beleg us (each of me and
     the goats), I being in this property surpassed by the goats.
     (Or something like that.)

(2-) doesn't make much sense in this case, but it does have a different
meaning. Unless we force {kau} to act on the deepest abstraction, but I
don't know if that's such a good idea.

Jorge