Re: general response on needing books

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> And:
> > Le prenu cu jinvi le duhu xihile cukta cu blanu
> >
> > The person thinks "the book is blue".
>
> I'd translate that English sentence as:
>
>         le prenu cu jinvi la'e lu le cukta cu blanu li'u

I accept this as a solution (avoiding need for 'xihi' with LE)
so long as lu...lihu may merely represent a bridi, and not
necessarily an utterance.

> > To find out which book, you'd
> > have to ask the person, not me the speaker.
>
> Why the person? Is there something special about the x1 position?

In the pragmatic context it would be implied that it would
be the person that knows the referent of 'xihile cukta'. All
'xihi' would indicate grammatically is that the speaker doesn't
necessarily know the referent.

I think on the whole you are right & I am wrong: it is better
not to use 'xihile' and instead have a way of representing
other people's thoughts.

> > You need local quantification or reference-assignment only when it
> > is in a clause subordinate to an irrealis element of meaning (i.e.
> > something whose argument is not necessarily the case).
>
> I disagree. The quantification applies to realis elements as well.
> (The reference assignment is a different issue, which I don't think
> has anything to do with locality.)
>
> For example:
>
>         mi djuno le du'u lo cukta cu blanu
>         I know that there is a book that is blue.
>
>         da poi cukta zo'u mi djuno le du'u da blanu
>         There is a book such that I know it is blue.
>
> Different claims, both with realis subordinate clauses.
> (In the second one I have to know which book, in the first one I
> may or may not know.)

Are you *sure*? I agree there isn't an irrealis element
(assuming djuno is like 'know' rather than 'believe')
but your two examples (in both Eng. & Loj) seem to me
to mean the same thing.

> > And in most
> > utterances there won't be such an element. However, when there is
> > such an element you may indeed be right that local rather than
> > outermost quantification is more often what is wanted.
>
> The question then is whether the need to use outside quantification
> is significant enough to warrant the introduction of xi'i. You can
> always be explicit using a prenex, is there really a need for the
> more compact form with xi'i? I'm not sure.

What if people forget or don't bother to use a prenex, even
when their intended meaning warrants it?

Still, I think I will drop the 'xihi' proposal, in the hope
that combinations of xehe, lahelu, and use of prenexes will
do the job.

---
And