Message-Id: <199602260353.WAA25600@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:45:45 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      short intemperate response to Lojbab on {duu}
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Content-Length: 937

> >lb> If du'u is a one-place predicate then "da du'u broda" has some
> >lb> properties - is it a relation, a sentence or what?
> "du'u" is not a one place predicate (nor does it make one).

It is. I've explained several times why. Do you need me to explain it
again?

> >My objection to {duu} is that it is pointless for it to be a selbri.
> >Whenever I used {duu} I was always irked that the choice of gadri was
> >utterly irrelevant
> Not utterly, since as you said, "li" was inappropriate.  Your argument
> would seem to apply to any places of selbri that are inherently
> singular.

Exactly so.

> There is more than one value for the x2 of a du'u selbri for any given
> x1 - if nothing else, there are multiple languages that the claim can be
> expressed in.  So even if the x1 is an inherent singularity, there is
> still a purpose to du'u in relating truth claims to the relationship
> they claim.

That's {jufra}.

coo, mie and