From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Thu Jun 16 20:20:43 1994
Message-Id: <199406170015.AA02889@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Thu Jun 16 20:20:43 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 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