From - Mon Nov 25 11:56:00 1996
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Date: Mon Nov 25 11:56:00 1996
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: subordinate interrogatives
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: c5a59e25d2dbac562fd8c308c408ba45
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  998
Message-ID: <1yH_hs5GQbD.A.GHC.H70kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>


Mark to Jorge:
> >Let's see now, we can also do {mokau}:
> >
> >        ko'a djuno ku'au mi mo kau
> >        she  knows that  I  Qu N.I.F.
> >        "She knows what I am."
> >
> >Which expands to:
> >
> >        ro bu'a zo'u ge da jei zei jei gi ko'a djuno ku'au
> >        da jei mi bu'a
> >        "For every F(), there is something that is a truth value and
> >        that she thinks is the truth value of the proposition F(mi)."
> This reminds me of when I first ran into these second-order propositions, I
> think with a sentence in the Book of Esther where it says "For she had told
> the King what he (Mordecai) was to her."  I don't think we needed a ku'au
> for it.

{kuau} is just an alternative to {loy duu}. It is not approved by
Lojban Central, because it is motivated solely by conceptual
elegance, and not by dire need.
The issue Jorge address is: What is the logical alternative to the
colloquial {mo kaw}? [& Xorxes gives the answer.]

coo, mie And