Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:38:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711281538.KAA25388@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Indirect questions X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3339 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 28 10:38:14 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Jorge: > >> >> >> {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. I don't see that xu kau is deictic at all. "She wondered whether he was hungry" does not vary in meaning according to when and where who says it to who. > >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. No problem. That's {ko seljufrygau le du`u xu kau do badri}. > Or, in my more pedestrian version: ko cusku lu mi ja'a badri li'u > a lu mi na badri li'u Sort of... Obviously it doesn't mean the right thing, though; it's only implicit that the se cusku should be truthful. > >> 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. Well, either "se bacru" means "is (a) a text-type whose token is uttered, or (b) a sound", or usage is wrong, or we were wrong about zo (and either my original idea was right or zo itself denotes both text-types and tokens). I predict that if this is left to ordinary usage, words like "bacru" and "zo" (and many many others) will become homonymous. > 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? A text-type is normally thought of as a sound-meaning pair. I haven't thought through the implications of equating sound-patterns and text-types. > >> 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.) How come? Where does the restriction to single words come from? "pa valsi" is a single word, but "valsi" doesn't mean "is a single word". After all, {lei ci valsi cu valsi} is sensical, isn't it? --And