From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Fri Jun 24 16:35:06 1994 Message-Id: <199406242035.AA04883@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Fri Jun 24 16:35:06 1994 Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: nunsucta sidbo X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO la veion cusku di'e > 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) This is an interesting distinction, which can in some way also be made using du'u: mi djuno le du'u ko'a mokau slabu In any case, if that's what {jei} means, it shouldn't be translated as "the truth value". > ko'a zenba le ni slabu Or: ko'a zenba le ka slabu It's hard to tell what the difference is. > 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 use of dakau there is the one proposed in the abstractions paper, but I think the usage proposed by Iain is both more useful, and more in accordance with indirect questions. I would write the sentence: mi zmadu do le ka citka xokau plise (or {tu'okau}, but I prefer the question words) to make sure that the exceedidng is in how many apples are eaten, and not, for instance, in how fast the number of apples are eaten. I am very tempted to suggest {ke'a} for the role of the lambda variable. (I have no idea what a lambda variable is, other than what I've read here, so I may be talking nonsense.) I know {ke'a} is used for subordinate clauses, but the idea is similar. Would there be any conflicts in extending the use of {ke'a} to this? Then we would have: mi zmadu do le ka ke'a citka xokau plise And then we can use {dakau} or {makau} for things like: mi zmadu do le ka [ke'a] jerna makau I exceed you in what we earn. Jorge