Re: [jboske] Re: Re: RE: Re: lo'edu'u

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Nick Nicholas wrote:


> But, if {le du'u makau zukte} means "someone dunnit, for a known
> 'someone'", then {pa da djuno ledu'u makau zukte} means "one person
> knows that {someone dunnit, for a known someone}", and {no da djuno
> ledu'u makau zukte} means "no person knows that {someone dunnit, for a
> known someone}". I think there's a scoping effect here: whether the x1
> of djuno is filled or not, or by what, {le du'u makau zukte} asserts
> the instantiation of the sumti. If the x1 of djuno is 0, then that
> whole jufra is not known by anyone, so the instantiation is held to be
> bogus anyway.
>
> I haven't studied or thought about {kau}, so who knows, mebbe you're
> right. But this doesn't convince me.



It shouldn't. But, notorious in this discussion has always been the
presence of "djuno" in the examples, conflating kau and djuno. So let's
ditch it: what does "du'u makau zukte" mean, Nick? And how is it different
from "du'u ko'a zukte"?




-- 
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.