From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri May 26 21:59:12 1995
Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA3114 ; Fri, 26 May 95 21:58:58 BST
Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk;
          Fri, 26 May 95 03:34:33 GMT
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa12416;
          26 May 95 4:33 +0100
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5332; Thu, 25 May 95 23:31:57 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3408; Thu, 25 May 1995 23:31:57 -0400
Date:         Thu, 25 May 1995 23:32:13 -0400
Reply-To:     "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@math.harvard.edu>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From:         "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@math.harvard.edu>
Subject:      {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Iain Alexander <ia@stryx.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To:  <01HQXMMU1WQABHLNDY@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU>
Message-ID:  <9505260433.aa12416@punt2.demon.co.uk>
Status: R

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.

 > co'o mi'e xorxes

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.