Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 03:30:35 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412190830.AA03947@access3.digex.net>
To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: Kau obverse
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

>> >         Alas, poor Yorik, I knew him well.
>> > xorxes: uu la iorik .i mi ri selsau
>> > djer:   uu la iorik .i mi rai pu djuno fi *xa'a ru
>>
>> You don't need your xa'a for the x3 of djuno, it already accepts objects.
>>
>>         I'd have to hear from lojbab on this.
>
>I think he will agree.

Not really knowing what this xa'a is as opposed to the numerous other
proposals that have floated or sunk in this discussion that I ahven't been
closely following - I still se my name taken in vain.

%^)

The x3 of djuno is something known about.  There is essentially no semantic restriction to the set of things that you can know about (philosophical
restrictions are part of x5 %^).  You can certainly know about a thing, and
in this text, it is apparent that the thing known about is "that which is
named "Yorik".

What is known, x2, has by consensus come down to being a [le]du'u abstraction,
though more often than not, I use a tu'a regarding somethhing specific within
that implied abstraction that is the "new information" actually known.  I
suspect that there is much commonalty between this concept of "new information"
(which I think is also reflected in a cmavo like bi'u) and "kau" and "ki'a".
But I'll admit that I don't have time or energy to explore this in depth,
especially when I can't keep up with the threads, while preparing for Xmas, putting out JL19, and trying to catch up on 5 months email backlog.

lojbab