Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:45:17 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412150645.AA18107@access1.digex.net>
To: jlk@NETCOM.COM
Subject: Re:  kau obverse
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

>.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:
>--More--
>.i mi djuno xa'a dakau klama le zarci.

zo'e is elliptical, and if you want to use the term "unspecified", do not 
equate it to non-specific (i.e. -specific) because it is I think +specific

(how this statement of specificity interacts with the fact that zo'e might
represent "lo" which has been taken to be specifically non-specific, I will
leave to someone else to debate)

at least to the extent thhat I can supply a non-zo'e value if asked to
substantiate.  Thus zo'ekau could but need not be identical to xa'adakau, if
zo'e's specific value is xa'ada.

lojbab