Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qpRmy-000024C; Tue, 27 Sep 94 03:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2964; Tue, 27 Sep 94 03:57:15 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2961; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 03:57:14 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6598; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 02:54:19 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:37:28 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: general response on needing books X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1739 Lines: 53 And: > I still don't see it. 'Know' means that that its duhu complement > is true (according to the speaker). Exactly. But a quantification inside the du'u complement refers to that statement (the one that the speaker knows is true). A quantification outside refers to the statement that says that the speaker knows something is true. > You seem to be using 'djuno' > to mean 'believe', whose duhu complement is not necessearily > true - i.e. it is irrealis - and only on this interpretation can I > understand your examples to differ in meaning. Suppose you find a handwritten letter without a signature. >From your knowledge of how things get written, do djuno le du'u da zo'u da ciska le xatra You know that for some x, x wrote the letter. However, da zo'u do na djuno le du'u da ciska le xatra It is false that for some x, you know that x wrote the letter. or rephrasing, roda naku zo'u do djuno le du'u da ciska le xatra For each x, it is false that you know that x wrote the letter. > > I think that if nitcu et al. are changed to event-only, then xe'e > > won't be of much use at all either. > > I think xehe is still needed for "xehe PA" constructions: "I am > willing to read any three books", "any two people can sit on > the sofa". Can you do these without xehe? Yes, for the same reason you can do nitcu: they are inside abstractions. mi djica le nu mi tcidu ci selcku I am willing to read three books. kakne le nu re prenu cu zutse le sfofa Can that two people sit on the sofa. Who is it that can, in the last one, is tricky. But yes, there has to be a way at least to emphasize the anyness, like the English "whatsoever". Jorge