Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0riPfO-00001pC; Sat, 25 Feb 95 18:48 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0986; Sat, 25 Feb 95 18:48:43 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0984; Sat, 25 Feb 1995 18:48:43 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1509; Sat, 25 Feb 1995 17:44:50 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 16:46:40 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 24 Feb 95 14:32:20 EST.) Content-Length: 3170 Lines: 68 Jorge: > I'm not sure whether we are arguing in circles here. > These two could be true at the same time: > (1) ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama > (2) ko'a djuno le du'u da klama > Also, these two could be true at the same time: > (1) ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama > (3) ko'a djuno le du'u noda klama > Also, these two could be true at the same time: > (1) ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama > (4) ko'a djuno le du'u ko'e klama > This does not mean that they are synonymous, it only means that > they are compatible. (4) implies (1), (3) implies (1), (2) > implies (1), (4) implies (2). But none is equivalent to (1). If we differ, it is in that I think (4) entails (2). If I say (1), I am only claiming that koha knows some true replacement for {makau}. For (1) to be true, this true replacement must be {no da} or something that entails {da}. For (1) to be false, koha musn't know the true replacement is {no da} or something that entails {da}. I therefore conclude that truth- conditionally, {makau} is equivalent to {xukau}. > > > > That is, to claim {koha djuno le duhu makau klama} is merely > > > > to claim "She knows whether there is someone that came". It > > > > seems the same as {koha djuno le duhu xukau da klama}. > > > Perhaps, but {ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama} strongly suggests > > > (without reaching the point of claiming) that she knows a useful > > > answer to the question, just as {ma klama} pragmatically asks for > > > a useful answer, even though in principle anything that makes > > > the sentence true is acceptable. (What is useful and how useful > > > it is depends, of course, on context.) > > I'll go along with this. Two interesting things have emerged from > > our discussion of Q-kau: (1) there are alternative locutions of form > > {da zohu ... le duhu ... da}; > Alternative locutions that make different claims yes. Otherwise, to > make the same claim, your {da} has to be a {da poi sumti}, and then > a {la'e da} inside the du'u. There are alternative locutions for making different claims, i.e. claims equivalent to English indirect interrogatives. There are also alternative locutions for making the same claim: this would be: (5) da zohu koha djuno le duhu da is-truth-value be le duhu broda which is truth-conditionally equivalent to all Q-kau, I think. > > (2) the truth-conditional meaning > > of Q-kau is not what we (or at least I) had originally thought > > it to be. > That's true. Originally, I hadn't realized that (2) must imply (1) > to be consistent with the use of direct questions. (But (1) does > not imply (2), so they are not equivalent.) That's right. (1) implies (in the sense "entails") (6). (6) Koha djuno le duhu da klama I jo nai koha djuno le duhu no da klama where all tenses etc. of each klama bridi are the same. So (1) is equivalent to (6), and hence to {koha djuno le duhu xukau da klama}, and hence to (5). [Where 'equivalent' = 'truth-conditionally equivalent' & not, of course, 'pragmatically equivalent'. Obviously if someone says {makau} rather than {xukau} then the hearer will presume there is some communicative purpose in the speaker's doing so.] ---- And