Message-Id: <m0qp1fq-00001DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 25 Sep 1994 18:04:28 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: general response on needing books
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1552
Lines: 49

> >         mi djuno le du'u lo cukta cu blanu
> >         I know that there is a book that is blue.
> >
> >         da poi cukta zo'u mi djuno le du'u da blanu
> >         There is a book such that I know it is blue.
> >
> > Different claims, both with realis subordinate clauses.
> > (In the second one I have to know which book, in the first one I
> > may or may not know.)
>
> Are you *sure*? I agree there isn't an irrealis element
> (assuming djuno is like 'know' rather than 'believe')
> but your two examples (in both Eng. & Loj) seem to me
> to mean the same thing.

I have 5 books on my table. I tell you that one of them is blue.
Assuming you believe me, then

        do djuno le du'u pa le cukta cu blanu
        You know that one of the books is blue.

but not

        pa le cukta zo'u do djuno le du'u cy blanu
        For one of the books: you know that it is blue.

> > The question then is whether the need to use outside quantification
> > is significant enough to warrant the introduction of xi'i. You can
> > always be explicit using a prenex, is there really a need for the
> > more compact form with xi'i? I'm not sure.
>
> What if people forget or don't bother to use a prenex, even
> when their intended meaning warrants it?

They would also forget xi'i... :(

> Still, I think I will drop the 'xihi' proposal, in the hope
> that combinations of xehe, lahelu, and use of prenexes will
> do the job.

I think that if nitcu et al. are changed to event-only, then xe'e
won't be of much use at all either.

>
> ---
> And
>

Jorge