Message-Id: <199406232057.AA10946@nfs1.digex.net>
Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Date: Thu Jun 23 16:57:12 1994
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      TECH: nunsucta sidbo
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jun 23 16:57:12 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

Some thoughts in response to Ian:

1) Re: Desperately seeing properties

   Distinction between predicate and function:

     I started out from quantifiable properties and
     the need to separate predication and function.
     I took me a while to get things straightened out
     but now I think we can pair "ni" and "jei" together
     the same way we pair "ka" and "du'u":

                   quality       quantity

      predicate     du'u           jei

      function       ka             ni


     Example pairs:

      du'u/ka     mi djuno le du'u ko'a ctuca

                  ko'a ckaji le ka [ko'a] ctuca

      jei/ni      mi djuno le jei ko'a slabu
                  I know the extent to which he is old
                  NOTE: not necessarily merely whether he
                        is old or not (cf. JC)

                  ko'a zenba le ni slabu

2) Identifying focus points

  There we certainly seem to have problems. I think, however,
  that we can solve a number of them by separating quantization
  from quantification:

       mi djuno le du'u do citka xokau plise
       I know how many apples you eat.

       mi zmadu do le ka [dakau] citka tu'o plise
       I exceed you in the quality of eating a number of apples

  I don't think the latter example exhibits a more illegitimate
  use of "ka" than any other one of the comparison examples.
  The focus isn't so much on the quantity of eating as on the
  number of apples. This is quite different from

       mi zmadu do le ni [dakau] bajra le klaji
       I exceed you in the quantity of running on the streets

  Well, actually I think "ka" would do there, too (or else all
  the other examples ought to have "ni" - exceeding implies
  quantification, after all.)

  If we do not want to focus on the number of the apples, we just
  say

       mi zmadu do le ka citka le plise

  -----

  The real problem is separating

        I know B exceeds C in being loved
  from
        I know in loving whom B exceeds C

  There are two possibilities if we don't want to introduce new
  cmavo

  A)    leave the 1st case unmarked:

           mi djuno le du'u by cmadu cy le ka prami da

        This presents a problem if "da" is in use already.

  B)    use a marked "ma" in the 2nd one:

           mi djuno le du'u by cmadu cy le ka prami makau

        This might be OK - especially if question cmavo were
        always used in indirect questions.


  co'o mi'e veion

---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------