Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rI7MZ-00007DC; Thu, 15 Dec 94 06:00 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA07609 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 06:00:17 +0200 Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI (MAILER@FINHUTC) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-7 #2494) id <01HKNQ66GN8W0006J0@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 03:59:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1017; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 06:00:25 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6600; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 04:56:36 +0100 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:27:29 -0800 From: Gerald Koenig Subject: kau obverse Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Gerald Koenig Message-id: <01HKNQ66IUCY0006J0@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2003 Lines: 47 I see that my previous post on "kau" is erroneous because I didn't look up the definition of "djuno", which requires an abstraction in x2. However it will make the same sense if the selbri "sanji" is everywhere substituted for "djuno." sanji saj conscious x1 is conscious/aware of x2 (object/abstract); x1 discerns/recognizes x2 (object/abstract) =6m 48 [also: x1 knows [of] x2 (one sense); awareness implies some amount of mental processing above and beyond mere sensory detection, and may also be applied to mental relationships that are not detected by the senses]; (cf. menli, morji, ganse, sipna, cikna) Lojbab said, speaking of Nora's contribution: The "makau" style indirect 'questions' to her are really >the same statement, but they falsely resemble questions in English (and >maybe in other European languages) when what is really being done in "I >know *who* went to the store" is ellipsis: (mi djuno ledu'u zo'ekau >klama le zarci). There is no 'question' and it is unloglandic to think >of it as a question. .i mi djuno le du'u zo'e kau klama le zarci is close to my revised formulation: .i mi sanji da kau klama lo zarci as lojbab intends it (I hope) but I read lojbab's sentence as: I know the factual predication: some unspecified person goes to the market. This doesn't say that I know exactly who went, it only says I know some unspecifed person goes. To say that I know "who" went I would need to say I know the referent of the predication: .i mi djuno la'e le du'u zo'e kau klama le zarci. I might add that if xa'a were accepted, we could say: .i mi djuno xa'a dakau klama le zarci. xa'a would allow x2 djuno to accept an object/person. x3 and x4 djuno are left intact giving djuno a different definition than sanji. xa'a would really add a lot of expressive power to the language as well as allowing very natural (for E-speakers at least) expressions, such as "Alas, poor Yorik, I knew *him* well". djer