Received: from mail-gg0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:33722)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban-beginners+bncCMe7-cCLDRDK7LL-BBoEIN4XTg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SbXDk-0001Xo-TW; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:21:27 -0700
Received: by ggke5 with SMTP id e5sf4130591ggk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:user-agent:x-http-via
         :x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=PoMWNqfxYd83ciu/REFmbWrIvD+gll3d8F9WXOCTUZU=;
        b=yhVyrFcNdwZ5BhZMrQw96CxvH/ygJDCcXB+RGRrATgUMuXYncIOaucr407IcIVZQt6
         wkHULXCnQiNOrtcwGDDB6MhEI3nTyxl21Hlvu2fmy2bb5/i2kK6RyAwDvXYO7k1vKAJe
         u/4ynCv/y+e+zgLtgXNnlq+gGzSofDtlKeAIQ=
Received: by 10.52.68.134 with SMTP id w6mr560944vdt.6.1338816074470;
        Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.119.137 with SMTP id z9ls2593814vcq.2.gmail; Mon, 04 Jun
 2012 06:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.28.8 with SMTP id x8mr565054vdg.0.1338816073341; Mon, 04
 Jun 2012 06:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by q2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:21:13
 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 alta.it.cx (squid/3.1.11)
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <f81ba4b1-8cf1-4698-9b2d-4180a8de3d44@q2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] xu kau
From: tengo <yurock.tengo@gmail.com>
To: Lojban Beginners <lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: yurock.tengo@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain
 of yurock.tengo@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=yurock.tengo@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban-beginners.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:lojban-beginners+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:googlegroups-manage+300742228892+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /
Content-Length: 1391

coi

I have read about {xu} and {kau}, and I find most usage of {xu kau}
odd. As I understand {xu}, it puts the main bridi into question, not a
sub-bridi. Consider the following example:

do djuno lo du'u la .frank. cu bebna
You know that Frank is foolish

First I add {xu}:

do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna
Is it true that you know that Frank is foolish?
Do you know that Frank is foolish?

So, it's now a question. Then I add {kau}:

do djuno lo du'u xu kau la .frank. cu bebna
Whether you know that Frank is foolish.

Which is what seems odd to me. The CLL has an example in chapter 11:

7.3)   mi djuno le jei la frank. cu bebna [kei]
       I know the truth-value of Frank being a fool.

And later in the text: "I know whether or not Frank is a fool", which
seems to be the intended meaning of {mi djuno lo du'u xu kau
la .frank. cu bebna}.

So, is there a special rule for interpretation of {xu kau}? If yes,
where is it defined? Is the {jei}-version still correct with current
definitions of {jei} and {djuno}?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.