Message-Id: <m0rFSeA-00006wC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:03:10 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3259
Lines: 85

la lojbab cusku di'e

> Because it has been used in more ways than to mark indirect questions,
> at least in the sense that I understand them.

We either understand indirect questions differently, or I've missed some
of those uses.

I understand kau to work as in the following cases:

        ko'a pu drani smadi le du'u ca makau ko'e klama
        She correctly guessed when he would/will come.

        ko'a ko'e tugni le du'u ko'i skari makau
        He agrees with her on what color it is.

        ko'a cusku le sedu'u xokau prenu cu bilma
        They say how many people are ill.

        ko'a ciksi le du'u xukau le nu stali cu xagmau le nu klama
        He explains whether it is better to stay or to go.


If there is some different use of kau, I don't know what it is.


> I opine that jei is a relationship between a du'u implied by the clause
> and its numerical truth value (which perhaps should be the x1 of the jei
> bridi)?

Ok, that's what the current definition suggests. But then let's not
use it to mean "whether".

> For mi djuno tu'a le jei [bridi]
> This would give "I know that the truth value of [bridi] is li tu'o"
> (oops, you'll have to look up that Mex word %^)

I don't consider PAs (or li) specifically MEX words, I think they
are useful.  :)

> which is not far removed from "I know "what" the truth value of [bridi] is"

As long as you use the {tu'a} I have no problem with it. But then {du'u xukau}
only has one more syllable, and is much more explicit.


> >So {si'o} is something like {du'uda'i}?  I don't believe that using
> >{du'u} claims that its bridi is true.
>
> No but I think that it claims that there is a world where its truth
> could be rationally evaluated.  You think so too, or you would not try
> to presume that jai could be subsumed under du'u.

No, I don't think I explained that very well. I _don't_ think {du'u}
covers the meaning "is the truth value of <bridi>" that jei has.

I think {du'u xukau} covers the meaning of English "whether" and that
the above definition of {jei} does not.

I also can't think of any use for jei with it's definition "is the truth
value of <bridi>". Since this is an abstractor, not a simple selbri,
one would expect that this would be needed relatively often, but I can't
think of a single selbri that takes {le jei ...} as a sumti.

> >co'a and co'u can be thought of as extended events in some
> >circumstances, but that is a whole nother topic...
>
> Ah, and how would you make this clear.  As is they are defined as point
> events.  So start a whole nother topic.  I mean it isn't like a dozen
> simultaneous interacting threads in this list is ENOUGH, is it %^).

Ok, I will, but in a few days. I have to think it through a bit more.
The main problem is that the tenses allow only a very restrictive order,
which I don't think is justified. (This ties in with the zu'apu vs puzu'a
thread as well. The solution would seem to be to allow space-time order
as well as time-space for the compound tenses. I'll write more on this
one of these days.)

> I'll bet your list of words that could be deleted is different from and
> smaller than it would have been a year ago, and will be different and
> smaller a year from now.

Different yes, smaller I don't know.

Jorge