Message-Id: <m0qslEC-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 6 Oct 1994 01:17:40 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: A couple of questions
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1868
Lines: 44

CS>1) Is there any difference between "lo broda cu brode" and "da poi broda cu
CS>   brode"?  If they are the same, the statement "lo [unicorn] cu brode"
CS>   should be false, since noda cu [unicorn].

lo broda is not the same as da poi broda, and this is specifically one of
the differences - there is no claim that the referent exists in the unoverse
of discourse.  Beyond that, however, is where the current debate seems to be
hanging - what else does "lo" mean?  I am going to hang back from opining
further for now.

CS>2) Has it occured to anyone that "needing" something might not imply
CS>"needing
CS>   to have it"?  I might say in English, "I need a clean environment," yet
CS>   I don't want to have (i.e., to possess) the clean environment.  Perhaps
CS>   this is yet another argument for constraining the x2 place of {nitcu}
CS>   to abstractions.

I first note that there is "sarcu" which may apply to some of these cases.
Otherwise, you could well be right that an abstraction is in order.  The
problem I see is that there are a LOT of places where intensionality is an
option, and it is currently seeming that intensionality requires an abstraction
place.  But for optional intensionality situations (I do not see that "nitcu"
must ALWAYS be intensional), things are very murky.

CS>3) Does the sentence
CS>
CS>     mi djuno ledu'u do djuno ledu'u makau blanu
CS>   mean "I know you know what is blue" or "I know what you know to be
CS>blue"?
CS>   Instinctively, the former should be correct, and the latter meaning can
CS>   be expressed by
CS>
CS>     mi djuno ledu'u do djuno ledu'u makauxire blanu
CS>
CS>   Am I right?

Since "kau" is a discursive, it cannot be subscripted, so your solution is
rather vague in meaning - you have really subscripted the "ma".

I would do the second as

mi djuno tu'a makau poi do djuno ledu'u ke'a blanu

lojbab