From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri May 26 21:59:37 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3123 ; Fri, 26 May 95 21:59:33 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 26 May 95 18:15:57 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa21548; 26 May 95 19:15 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8835; Fri, 26 May 95 14:13:09 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9252; Fri, 26 May 1995 13:50:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 13:55:14 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505261915.aa21548@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la dilyn di'e spusku la i,n > > > ... 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}.) Any sentence about concrete objects makes reference to some circumstance. How can {le cukta cu cpana le jubme} be a fact without any reference to the circumstance that the book happens to be on the table? > 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 agree {makau} is different from {da}, very different. {le du'u noda cpana le jubme cu fatci} also implies that {le du'u makau cpana le jubme cu fatci}. I am not claiming that this is a very useful thing to say, though, so I don't think I'll be using it much > > > 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 :-); Oops! > 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 > Yes, let's say I said that. > 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 This one doesn't parse. You can't put a tu'e-tu'u inside a du'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? No, {bo} doesn't work either. > 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. I'm not saying it's useful or nice, just that for me it has meaning. > The distinction between the two kinds of uses of {du'u} seems to be > that between a predication and a piece of information. Do you mean that {kau} makes sense for information but not for predication? I think all predications can be thought of as information, I can think of {fatci} as "information x1 is factual/undisputable". > mu'o mi'e. dilyn. > co'o mi'e xorxes