From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 15:19:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 22:19:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 75380 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 22:17:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:45 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.128]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010806221742.WZJH6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:17:42 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9265 Xod; > On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: [...] > > I have for some years been concerned by our inability (due to lack > > of logical expertise?) to uncover the underlying logic of Q-kau, so > > it's hard to say where it is and isn't appropriate. As things stand, > > we use English (& other natlangs?) as a guide: where English uses > > a subordinate interrogative, Lojban uses Q-kau. > > Except that in "I know who went to store", the phrase "who went to store" > really does symbolize an answer to the question. This is something we really don't know. There have been doctoral dissertations on this topic (which I haven't read) and there is probably a wider scholarly literature out there, but the answers and analyses that have filtered out of the arcane into the mainstream is the use of WH quantifiers, which I don't find a very illuminating answer. > But that is what Jorge says is false, and I can't find anything in the > Book or the archives that directly contradicts him. I'm sure Jorge hasn't said this & that you've misunderstood him somewhere along the line. > > > du'u do prami makau > > > The identity of the thing you love > > > > more like "who you love" > > Is there a difference? "the identity of the thing you love" is ambiguous in the way "your name" is in "I know your name" = "I know what your name is" "I uttered your name = "I uttered 'Xod'" an ambiguous example "I changed your name" = "I caused you to be called something else" = "I modified the name 'Xod'" The contrast can also be seen in: I discovered the book you'd read. I discovered which book you'd read. > > > do prami makau > > > (What does it mean?) > > > > Nothing, AFAIK. Because we don't understand Q-kau properly. > > I think this is a real problem. Am I overreacting? After all, if we don't > understand what it means, why do we understand ka + Qkau? Or are we really > taking ka to be a special case of du'u? As I said in an earlier message, Q-kau is modelled on natlangs (including English) and we use Q-kau where natlangs use indirect questions. It's good, though, that we persevere in seeking a proper logical understanding of indirect questions. > > > du'u and du'u + makau seem so different that it seems to me the latter > > > should actually be considered a different abstraction. What about > > > gardenpathing with du'u + makau? Isn't this a problem, since the reader > > > can't tell beforehand if a makau is coming up? > > > > Excellent point: yes, there is a risk of gardenpathing. In a sense, if > > we can get away with "du'u ... Q-kau", then we should be able to get > > away with "du'u ... ce'u" and dispense with ka. > > I don't see how this follows. However, if du'u is a ka with no ce'us, then > certainly we don't need ka! Let's just stick ce'us in our du'us. Is this really Xod saying this? I thought you were an archconservative hardline adherent of standard usage! But yes, so long as an implicit zo'e can't be interpreted as a ce'u (i.e. so long as ce'u can't be omitted) then yes, du'u ce'u would be a welcome purification. > > > lu'e le selprami be do > > > A symbol for the thing you love > > > > > > Isn't that what I was looking for in answer to Jorge's question? > > > > > > mi djuno lu'e le klama be le zarci > > > I know who goes to the store > > > > > > lu'e isn't quite a du'u, but it is a piece of information, so I think it's > > > true to the intent of djuno. The sticklers can replace djuno with selsau > > > if they must. > > > > I think Jorge has dealt with this too, so, in haste, I won't address it > > myself. > > I still think this lu'e use works. > > mi djuno lu'e le klama be le zarci > I know who goes to the store > > This means that I know the symbol of the store goer, not that I know the > store goer. Slabu may have other connotations, but this use does not fall > to the beginner's mistake of confusing {knowing John personally} with > {knowing some fact about John}. What is the symbol of something? Would a name be an example? I don't see how that would help. One can't djuno a name, and the fact that I se slabu 'Xod' doesn't tell me whether or not you went to the store. --And.