From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:59:15 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 4724 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1996 15:11:39 -0000
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 18 Nov 1996 15:11:38 -0000
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.A55A787C@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:11:40 +0100
Date:         Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:52:10 GMT+0
Reply-To:     And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      subordinate interrogatives
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2978
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <MHM5vfaKWlE.A.dFC.D70kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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