Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:27:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711280127.UAA10354@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: Indirect questions X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2758 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 27 20:27:50 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU And: >> >> >> {ko cusku le sedu'u xukau do badri} = "Say whether you're >> >> >> sad". >It means "ko cusku the text type that expresses the proposition(oid) >(that is expressed in Lojban by) {xu kau do badri}". So, >noting your corrections, but basically sticking to my original >contention, I think {ko cusku le sedu'u xukau do badri} means >not "Say whether you're sad" but "ko cusku lu xu kau mi badri li`u". Why do you accept that you have to change {do} to {mi}, but not that you have to change {xukau} to either {ja'a} or {na}? They are both changes that have to be made in going from proposition to text-type through the pertinent context. >Ah... I think the light is dawning. I reckon I sort of grasp >your point now. Hmm. If {mi djuno le du`u xu kau ko`a badri} >means "for every x, a jetlai of le du`u ko`a badri, I know >that x is jetlai of le du`u ko`a badri". The crucial thing >is that this only makes sense when {Q kau} occurs within a >proposition that itself is an argument of an epistemic >predicate. I no think {ko cusku le sedu'u xukau do badri} >just doesn't make sense at all. Why not? For every x a se jetlai (not a jetlai) of le du'u ko'a badri, express that x is a sejetlai of le du'u ko'a badri. Obviously you don't need to make an utterance for every x in order to express it for all of them. Or, in my more pedestrian version: ko cusku lu mi ja'a badri li'u a lu mi na badri li'u >> >-- I can't remember the appropriate word for "say". >> >Possibly something like "selvlagau" would do, but there >> >must be gismu for it. >> No, {cusku} should be the gismu for it, but for some reason it >> got tangled with text-types rather than with propositions, so that >> you have to use {sedu'u} which brings a text-type associated >> with the proposition. > >and which seems not to work, moreover. I'm not convinced yet. >> All very complicated. There is also {bacru} >> for text-types. > >I thought {bacru} meant to make a vocal sound. A text-type is >not a vocal sound. Well, bacru has always been used as in: {mi bacru zo a}, and I thought we said {zo a} was a text-type. But I'm not sure what's the point of separating what I think you mean by text-type and the one and only sound-pattern associated with it. Of course you can utter zo a without even being aware that it is a Lojban text-type. Is that what you object to? >> I don't know about {selvlagau}, maybe {seljufrygau}. > >Both are suitable. Curious that one must use a lujvo for >so common a concept as "say". But {selvlagau} would only work for single words. For example {ko selvlagau le du'u mi klama le zarci} means "Say in a word that I go to the market". (Or in many words if you like, but each of them must mean that I go to the market.) co'o mi'e xorxes