From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Nov 19 00:10:51 1996 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA16771 ; Tue, 19 Nov 96 00:10:48 GMT Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 848330045:6:11513:0; Mon, 18 Nov 96 15:14:05 GMT Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa522207; 18 Nov 96 15:11 GMT Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 3468; Mon, 18 Nov 96 10:11:09 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3621; Mon, 18 Nov 96 10:10:53 EDT Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:52:10 GMT+0 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: subordinate interrogatives X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <848330031.522207.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R Since Lojban is at base a logical language, for each of its constructions there should be an analysis in logical terms. This has generally been the case, but for subordinate interrogatives it has hitherto not been. For (1a-b), there has been no agreed on logical analysis, and instead we have relied on our knowledge of English, which in this construction Lojban follows the model of. 1a. koa djuno kuau xu kaw do nelci mi she knows that Qu N.I.F. you like me "She knows whether you like me." 1b. koa djuno kuau ma kaw nelci mi she knows that Qu N.I.F. like me "She knows who likes me." [Qu = Question, N.I.F. = no illocutionary force] These, I suggest have the status of colloquial alternatives to the more strictly logical (2a-b). 2a. Ge da zae jey zey jey gi koa djuno kuau da jey do nelci mi. ge da zae jey zey jey gi koa djuno kuau da both Ex nonce: truth value and she knows that x jey do nelci mi truth-value-of-that you likr me "There is something that is a truth value and that she thinks is the truth value of the proposition that you like me." 2b. Ro de zou ge da zae jey zey jey gi koa djuno kuau da jey de nelci mi. ro de zou ge da zae jey zey jey gi koa djuno every y end-prenex both Ex nonce: truth value and she knows kuau da jey de nelci mi that x truth-value-of-that y likr me "For every y, there is something that is a truth value and that she thinks is the truth value of the proposition that y likes me." "For every y, she knows whether y likes me." And the same approach works neatly for (3a-b), which on the Q-kau method would be (4a-b) respectively. 3a. Ro de zou ge da zae jey zey jey gi koa djuno kuau da jey de nelci de. ro de zou ge da zae jey zey jey gi koa djuno every y end-prenex both Ex nonce: truth value and she knows kuau da jey de nelci de that x truth-value-of-that y likr y "For every y, there is something that is a truth value and that she thinks is the truth value of the proposition that y likes y." "For every y, she knows whether y likes y." "She knows who likes themself." 3b. Ro de ro di zou ge da zae jey zey jey gi koa djuno kuau da jey de nelci di. ro de ro di zou ge da zae jey zey jey gi every y every z end-prenex both Ex nonce: truth value and koa djuno kuau da jey de nelci di she knows that x truth-value-of-that y likr y "For every y, for everu z there is something that is a truth value and that she thinks is the truth value of the proposition that y likes z." "For every y, she knows whether y likes y." "She knows who likes who." 4a. Koa djuno kuau ma kaw goi koe nelci koe. 4b. Koa djuno kuau ma kaw nelci ma kaw. coo, mie And