Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:04:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712101904.OAA12315@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Thanatos Sender: Lojban list From: Thanatos Subject: Re: Beginner question on meaning of "le ... xu ku" and "le ... X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2936 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 10 14:04:19 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU From: And Rosta >> le cutci ku xu se citka le mlatu >> Is it the shoes which are eaten by the cat? > >Yes. That's hardly a beginner's question! >> le cutci xu ku se citka le mlatu >> Is what is being eaten by the cat correctly described as shoes? >I would translate the second as: > > Is it the shoes that the cat is eating? > >- I don't know if you consider that a significant difference from >your version. With a simple selbri there isn't any significant meaningful difference, as the answer will be the same for both. The second question is slightly different from the first, and I was trying to capture that slight difference in English. However, a more complex description: le blanu cutci xu ku se citka Is the blue type-of thing being eaten shoes? le blanu xu cutci ku se citka Are the shoes being eaten blue? le blanu cutci ku xu se citka Are the blue shoes that which are being eaten? makes the distinction more obvious. So I think there is a subtle difference between: le cutci ku xu se citka and le cutci xu ku se citka The first is questioning: xu le cutci ku du le se citka Is it true that the shoes are identical with that which is being eaten. The second: le se citka ku cutci xu Is it shoes that that which is being eaten are? The meaning of which I don't think "Is it the shoes that the cat is eating" captures. [I'll just go on for those who haven't thought about this, and to clarify my own thinking] The first presupposes the existence of {le cutci ku} and {se citka}, and asks if that fills the x1 place of {se citka}, questioning a sumti. The second presupposes the existence of the x1 place of {se citka} and asks if {le cutci ku} is a correct description of it, questioning the descriptive selbri. And there's the difference, whether a sumti or a selbri is being questioned. For an analogous use of {ma}: ma se citka What is it that is being eaten? le mo ku se citka How is that which is being eaten described? The first requires a sumti, while the second a selbri. The exchange: ma se citka ti ti mo cutci Is equivalent to: le mo ku se citka cutci (btw, what's the convention for dialogues of this nature?) And finally: lu le blanu xu cutci xu ku se citka li'u na mintu lu le blanu cutci ku xu se citka li'u .i le go'i cu mintu lu le blanu xu co'e ku se citka .ija le co'e cutci xu ku go'i li'u .i le se go'e cu mintu lu xu le se citka cu du le blanu cutci li'u All this because I was taken by the versatility of {xu}. :) And it does require use to fully understand a part of the language. Now I really know what it means for {xu} to question the grammatical structure to which it is attached. The possible mechanism for expanding multiple questions to a string of sentences with one question each and the other questioned places filled with "unspecified" helps make sense of that as well. -- Erik W. Cornilsen