Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:22:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712111922.OAA27921@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Beginner question on meaning of "le ... xu ku" and "le X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 4918 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 11 14:22:30 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la nunmorsi cusku di`e: > >> 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! I was certainly right about that, as your reply shows. It's a relief to find someone asking trickier questions than I do: now Lojbab will chide you rather than me. > >> 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. I think the answer your "beginner's question" is that there isn't an answer, because you're the first person to have pondered it. Anyway, although I get your point, I don't think your English translations are spot on. I would instead offer: > le blanu cutci xu ku se citka Is it the blue SHOES that were eaten? > le blanu xu cutci ku se citka Is it the BLUE shoes that were eaten? > le blanu cutci ku xu se citka Is it the blue shoes that were eaten? > So I think there is a subtle difference between: > > le cutci ku xu se citka > and > le cutci xu ku se citka Yes. Neat. > 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. Yes: is it the shoes, as opposed to something else, that are 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. This is where I disagree with you. "Is it shoes that that which is being eaten are?" is a reasonable translation of {le se citka ku cutci xu}, though it would better correspond to a veridical sumti: cutci xu fa ko`a bi`u poi citka ke`a as opposed to your version, which is equivalent to: cutci xu fa ko`a bi`u voi citka ke`a {le cutci xu ku se citka} is equivalent to: citka ko`a bi`u voi ke`a cutci xu {le cutci ku xu se citka} is equivalent to: citka ko`a bi`u voi ke`a cutci ku xu > [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. I agree with this. > 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. I don't think this is correct. I think it asks whether the things that are *shoes*, as opposed to something else other than shoes, are eaten. > 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? I don't reckon that's altogether a good translation. It's more like: the what's-its-name is being eaten where this assertion also contains a request to the addressee to supply some description of the thing being eaten. > 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 I don't think so, for reasons I've tried to indicate above. To combine your exchange in a single pair, I'd suggest: A: citka ma poi mo B: ti poi ke`a 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 Excuse my not commenting on this: you've sent me into cerebral overload.... > 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. --And