From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:44:55 2010
Date:         Thu, 25 May 1995 23:32:13 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers)
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
X-From-Space-Date: 
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <LXI_vOfbPeB.A.fkE.nt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

mi cusku di'e
 > > >         mi facki le du'u le cukta cu cpana le jubme
 > > >         I discover that the book is on the table.
 > > >
 > > >         mi facki le du'u makau cpana le jubme
 > > >         I discover what's on the table.

la i,n cusku di'e
 > > .u'i'i'i'i You appear to have interpreted Dylan's "first place
 > > of {facki}" as "second place of {facki}", whereas I think
 > > he meant "first place of {fatci}".

Indeed, that's what I meant.  Sorry for the confusion.

 > > ... I can however think of circumstances where we would
 > > say something similar in English, meaning that the contents of
 > > the table-top are a matter of fact, not open to dispute.  I'm not
 > > sure if this would be malglico, or if there's a better way of
 > > expressing this in Lojban.

This would be malglico:  a {fatci} is supposed to be a "fact in the
absolute", without reference to any circumstances.  (I thing it's
equivalent to {jetnu befe zi'o}.)

la xorxes. cusku di'e
 > ... The sentence
 > with {le cukta} implies the one with {makau}, which says the
 > same but without mentioning what's on the table, just as in the
 > case of {facki}.

No, I disagree: {makau} is different from {da}.  I don't think the
sentence with {makau} has any meaning.

 > > I can't however think of interpretations
 > > for the corresponding bridi with {jetnu} or {jitfa}.
 >
 > How about something like:
 >
 >         i la djan pu cusku le sedu'u le cukta cu cpana le jubme
 >         ije le plise cu cnita le stizu
 >         i le du'u makau cpana le jubma cu jetnu iku'i le du'u
 >         makau cu cnita le stizu cu jitfa  i le tamca enai le plise
 >         cu cnita le stizu

I assume you wanted to have John say two things, but you got it a bit
wrong (as you pointed out to me earlier :-); you could say

         i la djan pu cusku le sedu'u ge le cukta cu cpana le jubme
         gi le plise cu cnita le stizu

or

         i la djan pu cusku le sedu'u tu'e le cukta cu cpana le jubme
         ije le plise cu cnita le stizu tu'u

or use a direct quotation, if appropriate.  I don't believe there's any
purely afterthought way of saying this; even {bo} wouldn't work, right?

Anyway, I disagree with your usage.  If I wanted to say such a thing,
I'd leave out the {makau}s entirely, since it's obvious that the places
should be filled with {le cukta} and {le plise}, respectively.

The distinction between the two kinds of uses of {du'u} seems to be that
between a predication and a piece of information.

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.