From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Aug 05 10:41:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 17:41:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 23897 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 17:41:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 17:41:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 17:41:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f75Hf0I13103 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:40:59 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9224 On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la ~mark cusku di'e > > >I thought that {jei}!={du'u xukau} and that was one of the reasons for > >{kau} in the first place. Correct me if I misremember. It was > >something along the lines of {le jei broda} means either "true" or > >"false"... to the extent that truth or falsity can be substituted for > >it. > > Those are the two competing meanings, yes. None of them is winning, > as far as I can tell. At least I never use it with either sense. I am afraid I can't think of any difference between jei and du'u xukau IF the du'u + Qkau means the answer to Q. This is what I thought it did, when I interpreted "le du'u mi prami makau as "the identity of what I love". According to Jorge, this is incorrect interpretation. Going back a moment, "le jei broda" = a truth value; a real in [0, 1]. The ANSWER to the question "xu broda" is the same. Since we (me, anyway) are often accustomed to thinking of "du'u makau broda" as the answer to the question "ma broda", then "le du'u xukau broda" collapses into "le jei broda". This is another argument for Jorge's position in itself; it eliminates the redundancy and makes jei other than a special case of du'u + Qkau. Jorge, I can understand your recent explanatory post better if I stop thinking of "makau" and use "ko'a" in its place. Really, we are not talking about questions so much as we are talking about algebraic variables. And, since du'u + Qkau doesn't turn the abstraction into the answer to the question, I really don't see why they are called "indirect questions" at all. They are indirect statements; statements with variables that are assumed to have known values that the speaker doesn't know or isn't revealing. mi djuno le du'u makau pu zarci le klama Unless du'u + Qkau really means 'the answer to the question posed by removing "kau"', why does the above statement imply that I know WHO went to the store? I could know simply that somebody did go to the store. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!