From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 00:59:08 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3137 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:59:04 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 27 May 95 17:16:45 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa03681; 27 May 95 18:16 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3087; Sat, 27 May 95 13:14:37 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5154; Sat, 27 May 1995 13:14:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 13:17:19 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: <9505271816.aa03681@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la dilyn cusku di'e > It can't, as far as I know. (Well, maybe you could say > > le du'u le cukta cu ka'e cpana le jubme cu fatci > > and then just elide the {ka'e}...) Why is the fact that the book can be there a fact, but the fact that it actually is there is not a fact? > > 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 > > Then I don't understand at all what you're proposing. Does there need > to be a previous statement about what's on the table? No, not at all. All that's required is that there be an answer to the question. > I _really_ > don't like that, since there's no such marking. Why wouldn't > le du'u makau cpana le jubme cu jetnu > always be true under your interpretation? (Actually, that may make > sense. I'll need to think about it.) It's not always true because the answer to the {ma} question depends on the context. If there was a recent statement about what's on the table, I would take that to be the alluded answer. > The statement > mi djuno ledu'u makau cpana le jubme > does not require any previous statement as to what's on the table. Of course not. It requires that there be an answer to the question {ma cpana le jubme}, which may or may not come from a previous statement. The statement then claims that the speaker knows the answer. That it has to be a true answer in this case comes from the meaning of {djuno}, not of {kau}. On the other hand, mi smadi le du'u makau cpana le jubme does not require that the answer in question be a true one. The speaker may conjecture that there is a book on the table without there actually being one. > > I think all predications can be thought of as information, > > I can think of {fatci} as "information x1 is factual/undisputable". > > This is an intriguing idea, though it clashes heavily with my natlang > intuitions. The sentence > > What is on the table is factual. > > just doesn't make sense. (Though it does make more sense with > "undisputable".) That's because you are interpreting "what" as the subject of the phrase, which is the correct interpretation in that English sentence. But in Lojban it is the whole du'u-phrase that is said to be a fact. I don't see why we should require a direct word for word translation to English. What the Lojban says is that "the answer to the question 'What is on the table?' is a fact", and what answer is alluded to has to be groked from the context. > Let me sleep on this. i ko pluka sipna > mu'o mi'e dilyn. co'o mi'e xorxes