Re: [lojban] "I know you have a brother..."

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/4/2001 10:08:36 AM Central Standard Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes:

And a worry about pulling references out of subordinate clauses with mental
predicates (I believe that Sherlock Holmes is still
>alive.  He raises bees in Suffolk.)

Which is a problem with the original - I know you have a brother; his name
is Bill. But with your complaint about the prepositions:
(8) mi djuno fi lenu zo'e bruna do .i zo bel. ra cmene

I believe that the English expands to 'I know about your having a brother'
just as easily as 'I know the fact that you have a brother' - though it
could also be 'I know about your brotheredness' which could also be:
(9) mi leka se bruna do djuno>

As noted, the problem fades with {djuno} b3cause it is factive.  But, if you move to {djuno3} it come back again: what if what I know about the event of your having brother is that it does not obtain?  Then the referencing doesn't work again (There is no God and Berty is His prophet).  But the fact is that what I know (believe, etc. has to be propositional, else we slide into the problem of knowing {djuno}  our enxt-door neighbors and so on.  The same excludes properties (and I wouldn't use {ka} here at the moment, since its status -- and exactly how to use it -- are up in the air on this list) and maybe more so.  

Which has the problem that there is then no referent for an anaphor, hence I
propose:
(10) mi leka se bruna ko'a goi zo'e ku do djuno .i zo bel. ko'a cmene

Is ''leka se bruna ko'a'' legitamate, or is it two sumti ({leka se bruna}
and {ko'a})? And is it better as 'ko'a goi zo'e' or 'ko'a goi da'?

I wouldn't both with {goi zo'e} here, since the unassigned {ko'a} is already indefinite and "the usual" enough for the purpose intended.  I think the rule about not extending beyond subordinate clauses spplies only to variables, not KOhA generally, but I would still worry about this transfer (quite aside from the {ka} problem), for anything other than {djuno}.